PROTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the Petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 332/93/ s 498- A/406/34 Indian Penal Code at PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the Petition are as under:- Praveen Kaur filed a complaint on 14.11.1993 at P.S. Jahangir Puri. She alleged in the complaint that she was married on 7th May 1989 to late Shri Bhupinder Singh at Chattiwind, Amritsar. Dowry was given according to status of her parents. But her in laws were not satisfied and they demanded cash, jewellery and colour TV. These demands could not be met. Thereupon, her father- in-law Pritam Singh and brothers- in-laws Ravinder Singh and Karamjeet Singh started abusing, beating and torturing her. She and her husband used to tolerate it helplessly. On 7th May 1990, a child Paramveer Singh @ Honey was born. Thereafter her father- in-law and brothers-in- law started demanding more dowry and used to harass her. On 15th October 1990, her husband expired. One month after the death of her husband, she came to her parents house at Jahangir Puri, Delhi. After about 15 days, she went along with her mother to her matrimonial house but her father-in- law and brothers-in-law did not allow her to enter the house and threatened to kill her. Since then she was residing in Jahangir Puri, Delhi. She does not want to go to Patiala. She sent a complaint by post on 14th November 1993 to the above effect. She was called to the police station and her statement was recorded. The Petitioners were admitted to anticipatory bail on 7th December's.

(3.) It is contended on the basis of the above-said facts that according to the statement ofPraveen Kaur, the marriage took place at Patiala in Punjab; all the alleged atrocities and cruelties, demands of dowry, harassments etc. committed by the Petitioners were caused at Patiala, Punjab. Therefore, the proceedings could have been initiated against the Petitioners only at Patiala (Punjab) and within the jurisdiction of Patiala courts and not in Delhi. Delhi courts have no jurisdiction to try the Petition. Besides as the marriage also took place on 7th May, 1989m Punjab and also the alleged atrocities as well as the last incident of harassment and beatings occurred three years ago in Punjab, the complaint was barred by limitation. Moreover, there is no allegation of specific entrustment of any article to any of the Petitioners. Consequently, no case has been made out against the Petitioners u/s 406 Indian Penal Code and whatever Istridhan was lying, that was taken away 24th November 1993. The present proceedings arising out of FIR No. 332/93 under Sections 498A and 406'read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence the prayer for quashing it.