RAVINDER KUMAR TANEJA Vs. ANJANA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for quashing of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The respondent, Anjana Rani filed a complaint under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Sonepat, and alleged that the petitioners had caused cruelty. The marriage of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized at Sonepat on 27.11.1985. Thereafter the couple started cohabiting at Delhi. The allegations are that the in-laws of the respondent Smt. Anjana Rani used to harass and maltreat her on the ground of inadequate dowry and for extracting valuables from her and her parents. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 16.8.1991 and issued process against all the accused petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. Against that order present petition is filed.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted before me that the alleged incident of cruelty had taken place at Delhi. Therefore, the Court at Sonepat (Haryana State) will not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a case pertaining to the offence that was obviously committed in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. He further brought my attention to the fact that respondent No. 1 had moved various police authorities at Delhi and the Dowry cell of the Delhi Police and the Women Organization at Delhi for ventilating her grievance. The Dowry Cell of Delhi Police after investigation found that the allegations made by respondent were not substantiated and not true. In that connection, he brought my attention to the text of the report thus submitted. It was also brought to my notice that prior to the filing of complaint by respondent, the petitioner No. 1 had already filed a divorce petition on 13.1.1989 in Delhi Court. It was submitted that the complaint now filed in the Court at Sonepat is nothing but by way of counter-blast to the proceedings initiated by petitioner No. 1 and with a view of harass them.

(3.) IT may be noted that prior to filing of the complaint in question, respondent had moved the Delhi Police and made grievance about the alleged cruelty. Delhi Police made enquiry and submitted the report, the relevant extract of which is reproduced at page 4 of the petition. It is in the following words:-