SUMIT ARORA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A. No.4295/2006 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Certified copies of the annexures be filed expeditiously. Application stands disposed of. W.P. (Crl.) No.1057/2006 and Crl. M.A. No.4296/2006 Through this petition under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Sections 482, 177, 156 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.4, i.e., Officer Incharge of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, Punjab to transfer the investigation of case FIR No.150/2005 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, Punjab to respondent No.2, i.e., Crime Against Woman Cell, Delhi or any other investigating agency of Delhi.

(2.) The petition has been made with the averments and allegations that the petitioner was married to respondent No.5, Smt. Preeti Kaur at Delhi on 08.02.2004 and thereafter they lived at their matrimonial home in Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Respondent No.5 left the matrimonial home in July, 2004 and took away the car and other belongings with her. Thereafter, efforts were made in the direction of conciliation and some settlement reached in October, 2004 On 03.07.2005, respondent No.5 lodged a report with the Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, Punjab, which was transformed into the FIR No.150/2005 and thereafter parents of the petitioner were arrested by the Punjab Police and certain recoveries of articles effected. The parents of the petitioner were enlarged on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and the petitioner was also granted interim anticipatory bail by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, ultimately the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 02.03.2006. After that, the petitioner filed a Crl. Misc. No.17033M/2006 for quashing of FIR No.150/2005 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was rejected by the said High Court on 23.03.2006. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition No.163/2006 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 17.04.2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while issuing the notice on the SLP, granted interim protection to the petitioner against his arrest. Afterwards, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court primarily on the ground that the complaint filed by respondent No.5 with Station Officer, Incharge of Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, Punjab, is a false and frivolous complaint and in any case, even going by the averments and allegations made in the complaint, the entire cause of action for the said complaint had arisen in Delhi and no part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Punjab.

(3.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to satisfy this Court about the competence and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same very pleas that the entire cause of action for filing the complaint has arisen in Delhi; the parties having been married in Delhi; they lived together at their matrimonial home in Delhi; and her harassment and torture for the reason of inadequacy of dowry and demand of dowry, etc., alleged to have taken place in Delhi; and no part of cause of action has arisen in Amritsar or the State of Punjab; and, therefore, this Court alone has the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and to quash the FIR in question. In support of his contentions, he has placed heavy reliance upon the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; AIR 2000 SC 2966, where on the facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Mumbai High Court and disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the complaint lodged by M/s. J.B. Holdings Ltd., at Shillong which was being investigated by the Special Superintendent of Police, CID, Shillong, should be transferred to Mumbai Police for further investigation through its Economic Offences Wing, General Branch, CID, or any another branch as the competent authority of the Mumbai Police may decide in accordance with law. The said decision was made primarily on the premises that no part of cause of action had arisen in the State of Meghalaya and the complaint filed at Shillong, Meghalaya was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurize the petitioner to reverse the transaction of transfer of shares.