CHANDRAKANT GUNVANTRAY PANDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners original accused have prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.I -255/2007 registered with Vejalpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) Respondent No.2 wife of petitioner No.1 has filed the FIR being CR No. 255/2007 against the petitioners original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with the Vejalpur Police Station alleging inter-alia that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with petitioner No.1 at Rajkot before 20 years and out of the marriage, they have got two daughters. It is further alleged that for five years after the marriage, there was no problem. However, subsequently, petitioner No.1 demanded Rs. 2 lacs from the father of the complainant and as the same was not paid and not possible to manage for Rs.2 lacs, both the petitioners started harassing the complainant and started giving physical and mental torture. It was further alleged that apart from that petitioner No.1 husband was having illicit relation with some other lady and when the complainant objected to it, she was ill-treated and beaten. Therefore, since last two years, she has come to reside with her parents. It is further alleged that maintenance case is going at Krishi Bhavan, Family Court, Ahmedabad and on even adjournments they are coming to Paldi, Ahmedabad and on every date of adjournments they are giving threat to the complainant and pressurize her to withdraw the case. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is to be noted that the said complaint has been filed on 13.06.2007 at Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners have preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Mr.N.D.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners original accused has submitted that alleged offences if at all committed by the petitioners, then also it is committed at Rajkot, therefore, Vejalpur Police Station and the concerned Court at Ahmedabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioners are residing at Rajkot and even petitioner No.1 and original complainant were also residing / staying at Rajkot after marriage till she left house of petitioner No.1 and went to stay with her parents at Ahmedabad and considering the averments and allegations in the complaint, the entire cause of action has arisen at Rajkot and only with a view to harass the petitioners, FIR has been lodged at Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad within whose local jurisdiction no offences haven taken place. Therefore, it is submitted that as Vejalpur Police Station has no territorial jurisdiction to inquire offences alleged, same requires to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate has made it clear that they are not pressing for quashing the complaint in its entirety. It is further submitted by him that when at the initial stage the petitioners have come to the Court pointing out that Vejalpur Police Station has no jurisdiction and consequently the Court at Ahmedabad would not have any jurisdiction then why unnecessary to continue investigation by the I.O. who has no jurisdiction. Therefore, it is requested to quash the impugned complaint and relegate the complainant to file complaint before the concerned Police Station having local jurisdiction where offences alleged to have taken place. Mr.Nanavati,learned Senior Advocate has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v/s. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in (1997) 5 SCC 30;Satvinder Kaur V/s. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728; and Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100. Mr.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied upon para 8 of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur (supra). Relying upon aforesaid decision and Sections 156 and 180 of the Cr.P.C., Mr.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate has requested to quash the impugned FIR and/or transfer the investigation / FIR to the police station having jurisdiction to inquire into the offences alleged in the FIR i.e. Rajkot police Station.