TANWEER SERAJ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR in Crime No.116/2023 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal for offence under Ss. 498-A, 354, 506, 34 of IPC and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 against petitioners is bad. According to the FIR, the respondent No.2 got married to Zain Tanweer on 5/12/2021 in accordance with Muslim rights and rituals. The marriage was performed at Bhopal. After her marriage she went to her matrimonial house on 17/7/2022. Her matrimonial house was situated at House No.213 Block D, Defence Colony, Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur. When she went to her matrimonial house, her husband Zain Tanweer, father-in-law Tanweer Seraj, mother-in-law Raffat Zareen, younger brother-in-law Zaid Tanweer and Ali Tanweer started harassing her on the question of dowry although her parents had given sufficient dowry in accordance with their financial condition. The petitioners started demanding Rs.10.00 Lakh and a Baleno car, whereas her father had already spent more than his financial ability and his financial condition was not such where he could have fulfilled the demand raised by petitioners. Because of that, the petitioners started passing taunts, using filthy language as well as also used to beat her and in various manners they were harassing her physically and mentally. When she went to her matrimonial house, her father-in-law Tanweer was having an evil eye on her and was misbehaving with her and was teasing her. When she made a complaint to her husband, then he too misbehaved with her. Her husband was working as a Software Engineer in TCS Company at Delhi. On account of job of her husband, she alongwith all petitioners went to Sidney (Australia) on 25/9/2022 and thereafter they came back to Kanpur on 8/1/2023. Even then, the petitioners continued to quarrel with her and beat her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and she was turned out of her matrimonial house with a clear direction that unless and until she brings an amount of Rs.10.00 Lakh and a Baleno Car, she should not come back to her matrimonial house otherwise she will be killed. She informed this incident to her father and came back to her parental home and since then she is residing in her parental home at Bhopal. She tried to save her married life but she could not succeed and accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

(3.) Challenging the FIR it was submitted by counsel for petitioners that unless and until a preliminary inquiry is conducted, the investigation which is being done by the Police is bad in law. It is further submitted that the alleged atrocities were committed at Kanpur and therefore, Mahila Thana, Bhopal has no jurisdiction to register and investigate the crime. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court in the cases of Rashmi Chopra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2019) 15 SCC 357, Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293 and Doliben Kantilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in AIR 2013 SC 2640.