MOHD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr.P.C.) prays for quashing F.I.R. No. 190 dated 29.8.2003 registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 471 506, 120, 124-A, 153-A 295 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for brevity, IPC) at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. on the basis of a complaint filed by one Anuj Sharma son of Ashok Kumar Sharma, resident of 29, Shankar Park, Ambala Cantt. The complaint was presented to the Judicial Magistrate who ordered investigation by the Police by exercising his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also prayed for staying of further proceedings on the basis of the FIR. It has also been prayed that arrest of the petitioner be stayed in the interest of justice. Another prayer made is that the police be directed to strictly observe and follow the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 31071-M of 2003 whereby Police protection has been provided to him and his wife Ms. Aalia Hussain @ Avedna Sharma.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy and the arguments raised, it would be necessary to refer to the FIR based on the complaint made by complainant- respondent 2 extenso and the same reads as under :-

(3.) MR . N.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that already two FIRs have been registered, namely, FIR No. 161 dated 18.7.2003 under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and FIR No. 163 dated 19.7.2003 under Sections 295-A and 298 IPC at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. against the petitioner and others. In both the FIRs, the petitioner as well as others have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail by Sessions Court, Ambala. In the present FIR, two other persons arrayed as accused, have already been named as accused in the FIRs registered in July, 2003. The learned counsel has pointed out that liberty of a citizen cannot be put to peril by the police by registration of series of FIRs and enlarging threat of arrest. According to the learned counsel, such an attempt would defeat the provisions of Section 167(3) Cr.P.C. as the period of 90 days would never come to an end. For the aforementioned proposition, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, 2001(3) RCR(Criminal) 436 (SC) : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048. The learned counsel has also raised the argument concerning territorial jurisdiction of ambala police to investigate the alleged offence because none of the offence could be considered to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Ambala Cantt. The learned counsel has further submitted that even if the petitioner is not considered to he legally wedded husband of Ms. Aalia Hussain @ Avedna Sharma, no commission of offence is made out because a man and woman can live under one roof. Lastly, Mr. Sanghi has argued that the FIR has been registered with a mala fide intention because the marriage of Ms. Aalia Hussain @ Avedna Sharma with the petitioner is against the wishes of her parents.