SHAILESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks quashing of proceedings in F.I.R. No. 204 dated 23.2.1998, registered in Police Station Central, Faridabad, under sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that after filing of this petition, the investigating agency has filed challan and has deleted section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and now the case is pending under section 498-A of the Code. Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that dowry articles have not been returned while counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is ready to return the dowry articles. Let the dowry articles, as per the list of the petitioner himself, be returned at 11 A.M. on 30.5.2002 in the presence of a senior citizen of the locality, to be selected by the petitioner. I am, however, not inclined to quash proceedings under section 498-A of the Code at this stage even though the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Faridabad court will have no jurisdiction as cruelty, if any, was at Delhi. Counsel for the parties have cited judgments taking different views, which will be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Jagan Nath Suri v. Babita, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 70 (P&H) : 1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 477; Mohan Lal and others v. State, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 534 and Rajinder Singh v. State, 1998(47) Delhi Reported Judgments 590. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied on Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reports 271 and Jiwni and others v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 710.

(2.) AFTER perusing the record of the case and hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that question of jurisdiction will depend on the set of the facts given in a particular case. There is no dispute with the proposition that jurisdiction will be at the place where the offence is committed, and for deciding where the offence is committed, various aspects will have to be taken into consideration. I, therefore, leave this question open to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.