SURINDER KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing No. 232/97 under section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The petition also seeks the quashing of the trial pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, arising from the aforesaid F.I.R. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:- The first petitioner, Surinder Kumar Yadav married Pushpa nee Minakshi on November 24, 1993 according to Hindu rites at Delhi. According to the First petitioner he has been working as Assistant Development Officer in Sahkarita Bhawan, Luck- now. Both Surinder and Pushpa after marriage resided at House No. 554/37/4/GA-8, Lane No.2, Pawanpuri, Sujanapura, Alambagh, Lucknow. It appears that the relations between the first petitioner and Pushpa soured with the result Pushpa Came back to Delhi on June 2, 1994 and on May 31, 1995, a complaint was filed by her with the Crime against Women Cell, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. On the basis of the complaint, FIR bearing No. 232/97 under section 406/498-A Indian Penal Code was registered on September 8, 1997 at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. During investigation the first petitioner was arrested on October 23, 1997 and later released on bail. Upon the completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial court at Delhi on September 2, 1998 against the first petitioner and his brothers Bhim Singh, Virender Singh and Narender Singh.

(2.) The main ground on which the petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. and the proceedings emanating therefrom and pending before the trial court at Delhi is that the offences, if any, under sections 498A/406 Indian Penal Code were committed at Lucknow and, therefore, the FIR could not have been lodged in Delhi and the Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi has no jurisdiction to try the offences. In order to judge the validity of the submission, it will be necessary to refer to the complaint filed by Smt. Pushpa with crime against Women Cell, sarai Rohilla, Delhi. As per the complaint, the marriage between the complainant, Pushpa and the first petitioner was solemnised at Delhi, according to Hindu rites and customs. The father of the bride is stated to have performed the marriage with great pomp and show and spent a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs thereon. It is also asserted that she was given articles worth Rs. 4 lakhs at the time of marriage by her parents. After marriage she was first taken to village Majhol (Jabardustpur), District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, where she stayed for about a week and thereafter, to the matrimonial home at Lucknow where she resided with the first petitioner. At Lucknow the brothers of the first petitioner (second, third and fourth petitioners) used to visit them. Soon after marriage the petitioners started pressurising her to bring a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for purchase of a flat in the name of the first petitioner at Lucknow. She was also told by them that if she failed to bring a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for the purchase of flat the first petitioner would divorce her. Since she was not able to meet the demand of the petitioners in respect of Rs. 3 lakhs, she was administered poison as a result whereof, she was admitted to the Gandhi Memorial Hospital at Lucknow on December 17, 1993. During her fillness she was made to sign number of blank sheets of papers by the petitioners. Her parents on coming to know of her illness went to Lucknow and on her discharge from the hospital brought her to Delhi. On April 21, 1994 when she went back to Lucknow again, she was mentally and physically tortured by the petitioners. It is claimed that on June 2, 1994 the first petitioner administered a severe beating to her at the instigation of his brothers and she was turned out of the house. She was also threatened that in case she tried to enter the house she would be killed. In these circumstances, she returned to Delhi, virtually in three clothes and since then she is residing with her parents and no maintenance is being paid to her by the husband. It is also alleged that her jewellery and clothes are being kept by the first petitioner and his brothers. Attempts to secure the return of her stridhan have not fructified. In the complaint she also alludes to the fact that the first petitioner had developed friendship with several girls and he had threatened to marry one of them. She was told that if she would report the matter to the police the petitioners would have her declared of an unsound mind. On September 11, 1997 a further supplementary statement of Pushpa was recorded by the police during investigation of the case. In her supplementary statement she asserted that her father gave sufficient dowry in her marriage. At the lime of marriage, the second petitioner Bhim Singh demanded a sum of Rs. I lakh and a car, however, her father gave a sum of Rs.1 lakh and a motor cycle. In the supplementary statement, she more or less reiterated the faced staled in the complaint, including the allegation that the articles of stridhan are still with the first petitioner and her brother-in-law(Jeth); which have not being returned to her. To the similar effect are the statement and supplementary' statement of her father under Section 161 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code').

(3.) It is common knowledge that when a bride leaves her parental home for matrimonial home stridhan presented to her by the parents and others for all practical purposes is placed under the charge and dominion of her husband and/or his family members. Normally at that stage she being a new bride placed in an unfamiliar environment and bound by the traditional moorings of the society, cannot take care of her stridhan especially when she is required to be shy and bashful and to keep her head covered and more often than not, to conceal her face by covering the same. In such a situation how can she look after her stridhan or even enquire about it. It is actually her in-laws who exercise control and dominion over the same during the transit and at the matrimonial home till the same, if at all, is made over to her. This dominion over the property amounts to its virtual entrustment to them under section 406 Indian Penal Code . There is no reason to treat the case of Pushpa differently. In the circumstances, the petitioners would have exercised dominion over her stridhan right from Delhi, where marriage took place. Failure to recognise such a situation would amount to negating the realities of life and the traditions. Basically the question of entrustment is a question of fact which is to be determined ultimately during the trial.