MANAV ARORA Vs. U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, this court proposes to dispose of the two aforesaid mentioned criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 713 dtd. 7/12/2013 registered under Ss. 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising thereunder, as a common law point is involved.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the aforesaid FIR was got lodged at the instance of respondent No.4, who is father-in-law of the petitioner. It is alleged that the marriage of the daughter of complainant, namely Ashima Soni was solemnized with the petitioner on 2/4/2012 in Chandigarh and presently his daughter is residing in Melbourne (Australia). It is alleged that in the ring ceremony, a sum Rs.50,000.00 were spent by the complainant. The complainant gave ancestral gold weighing 15 tola and a diamond ring to his daughter and Rs.1.00 lakh in cash was given to all relatives and friends. It is further alleged that one gold chain and one gold bracelet was given to the petitioner, whereas one gold chain weighing 18 gram and one pair of gold ear ring weighing 6 gram were given to the parents of the petitioner. It is also stated in the FIR itself that the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant went to Australia on 27/4/2012 and the complainant paid the air fare. It is further alleged that the entire family of the petitioner went to Australia on 28/8/2012 and remained there for 45 days and during their stay in Australia the daughter of the complainant was tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry. It is alleged that the complainant, along with his family, went to Australia on 8/4/2013 to meet his daughter where the petitioner's family instigated the petitioner to humiliate them. It is further alleged that on 13/5/2013, the mother of the petitioner called the complainant's wife at her residence and told her to pay Rs.1.4 lakhs as they had put financial burden on their son by visiting them. On 13/5/2013, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.25.00 lakhs in cash by the parents of the petitioner or their daughter would be tortured. The petitioner got spouse sponsor of his wife cancelled and also got served a legal notice for vacation of his house.

(3.) Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends the allegations, as set out in the FIR, are totally false and without any basis. It is argued that he marriage took place on 2/4/2012 and soon thereafter the couple went to Australia on 27/4/2012. It is contended that the incidents, if any, as alleged in the FIR, took place in Australia and therefore, the instant FIR is not maintainable primarily on the ground for lack of jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a judgment rendered in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others Versus State of Punjab and others 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 956. It is further contended that inventory of all the article found in the locker of the father of the petitioner was prepared and all the dowry articles and the gold ornaments were handed over to the complainant, in the presence of the police/investigating authority against receipt, vide Annexure P/5. It is also argued that there is non-compliance of Sec. 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as no sanction has been taken before registration of the FIR.