RISHI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. III dated 16.4.1993 under Sections 498 A1/506/34, I.P.C. P.S. City Dadri and order dated 4.10.1993 directing the framing of charges.

(2.) F .I.R. No. 111 dated 16.4.1993 was got registered on the basis of written application submitted by Nathi Lal son of Pat Ram, resident of Charkhi Dadri, to the S.H.O. P.S. City Dadri. In his compliant, Nathi Lal submitted that he married his daughter, Anita with Anil Kumar son of Rishi Kumar Moudgil. At the time of marriage, he gave sufficient dowry, i.e. cash, gifts, watch, suit, sofa-set, Saris, Pillias, Fridge, T.V., V.C.R., 51 utensils, double-bed, Dunlop Pillows, Steel almirah, dressing-table, three golden rings, one Jhumki, two bangles and locket etc. In his complaint, he further submitted that husband of his daughter is employed in Railways at Bombay and whenever he used to visit Rajkot from Bombay, the mother-in-law, Shakuntla Devi and Rishi Kumar have been instigating him, thereby harassing his daughter, Anita and asking her to bring more dowry, otherwise they would desert her and remarry. On showing inability to do so, they used to beat and harass his daughter, regarding which his daughter used to write in the letters/telegrams from her in-laws house to her brother, Suresh Kumar who lives in Delhi. It has further been stated in the complaint that "now after giving her beatings, she has been left at our house and was told to bring dowry and cash otherwise she should not come." Quashing of the First Information Report has been sought on the ground that the same does not disclose commission of any offence under the jurisdiction of P.S. City Dadri, but the local police under extraneous pressure, registered the case and after recording the statements of few witnesses, put up the challan in Court, whereafter the Magistrate without application of mind, passed a cryptic order dated 4.10.1993, for framing of charge. Quashing has also been sought on the ground that in the First Information Report, no date and time of the alleged harassment has been mentioned, but vague allegations of alleged harassment have been levelled. It has further been stated that petitioners are residing in Gujarat and, therefore, Court at Charkhi Dadri has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case for offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. In support of this argument, counsel cited judgment in Dhan Devi v. Deepak, 1989(1) RCR 278, wherein criminal complaint filed by the wife in Patiala Court was quashed since the major part of maltreatment, as alleged in the complaint, took place at Varanasi. Counsel also cited judgment in Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana etc., 1994(1) RCR 288, wherein it was held that since the wife was subjected to cruelty by the accused, i.e. her husband and his relations, at Ganganagar, the Court at Jind, where complaint was filed, had no jurisdiction to try it.