SUSHIL KUMAR GAHLOT Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No.1 (Sushil Kumar Gahlot) was married to the respondent No.2 (Sarika) on 29.4.1999. This marriage, according to the petitioner, was solemnized at Sardana, Dist. Meerut (UP) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The petitioner No.1 further claims that he and the respondent No.2 resided in the matrimonial house at C-58, Pallav Puram, Meerut (UP). The matrimonial alliance between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2, however, went into rough weather and certain disputes arose between the parties. Ultimately, the respondent No.2 moved out of the matrimonial home. She thereafter lodged a complaint under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC on the basis of which FIR was registered against the petitioners herein. As mentioned above, the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are younger brother and younger sister respectively of the petitioner No.1. FIR is registered with Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi, being FIR No. 166/01 dated 26.4.2004 In this FIR, summoning orders were passed by the learned Magistrate. On the service of these summons, the petitioners appeared and moved application for their discharge primarily on the ground that no cause of action had arisen at Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to try the alleged offence. This application was dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 1.7.2004 The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Crl. Revision Petition No. 52/2004, which has also been dismissed by the learned ASJ vide his judgment dated 24.11.2004 Challenging this order, present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Ground remains the same, namely want of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) The complainant had made a complaint before the CAW Cell/NE-Seelampur, Delhi, on 22.11.2000 in the form of a statement. In this statement, she has admitted that marriage took place at Meerut. She has further stated that at the time of marriage, dowry was given by her parents and relatives according to their capacity for purchase of one Maruti car. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, in cash, was also given and car was bought from Tania Automobile, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut. Further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, by way of two bank drafts of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively, was also given. She also gave list of other articles given in the dowry. She has further stated that after the marriage she stayed in her matrimonial house, i.e. at Meerut, where further demand was made on the ground that there was a promise to bring Rs.5,00,000/- and this demand in full was not made. There are also allegations of harassment and demand of dowry including abortion of the complainant, when she was pregnant, against her consent, which was also in local Apollo Nursing Home, Meerut. The allegations of beating are also there, but they also pertained to the period when she was staying in her matrimonial house at Meerut.

(3.) Notwithstanding this statement of the respondent No.2 as per which all the allegations constitute commission of alleged offence having taken place in Meerut, the reason which persuaded the learned ASJ to dismiss the revision petition is the allegation in this statement categorically stating that the marriage was settled and Rasam Rukai was performed on 10.1.1999, in which ceremony 24 coins of silver and cash of Rs.11,000/- were given. This ceremony took place in Delhi and because of this ceremony and giving of gifts, which are in connection with the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner No.1, it could not be said that no act pertaining to the offence involved had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi.