GYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject-matter of the above two miscellaneous petitions is FIR No. 250/97 of Police Station, Raisingh Nagar registered u/ss. 498-A & 406 IPC. Petition No. 671/96 has been preferred for quashing the FIR and petition No. 911/97 has been filed seeking the modification of the bail order dated 9/7/1997 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge imposed the condition that petitioner - Gyan Singh's passport shall remain deposited in the trial Court.

(2.) MR. Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the contents of the FIR clearly shows that the alleged cruelty had taken place on foreign land and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station. He pointed out that the petitioner is foreign national and Ranjandeep alias Ranju Bala who is said to have been subjected to cruelty, is also a foreign citizen and contended that the Indian courts cannot take cognizance and the police has got no power to investigate the matter. He canvassed that the FIR does not disclose that Ranju Bala ever demanded her property from the petitioner and, therefore, the offence u/s. 406 IPC is not made out and the FIR should be quashed on that ground also. MR. Kharlia further pointed out that before the FIR was lodged, divorce petition was filed in a Court in England on 3/6/1997 and preliminary decree was passed on 22/7/1997 and the marriage of Ranju Bala and Bakhtawar Singh stands dissolved by the final decree dt. 11/9/1997 and Ranju Bala has been handed over her entire property on 23/5/1998. Referring to the copies of the certain documents, he conten- ded that the dispute between the parties does to survive and the investigation as also proceedings before the Court, if launched, will be abuse of the process of the Court. He placed reliance on the cases of Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Ram Narain (1), Bijoyanand Patnaik vs. MRs. K. A. A. Brinnand (2), Samarudeen vs. Assistant Director of Enforecment (3) and Madhu Sharma vs. Dr. M. L. Sharma).

(3.) IT is next to be seen whether on the ground that in the FIR it is not stated that the property given in the marriage of Ranju Bala was demanded by her, the FIR should be quashed. The two essential ingredients of Sec. 406 IPC are the there should be entrustment of the property and then there should be dishonest misappropriation of the same. IT has been stated in the FIR that in the marriage of Ranju Bala with Bakhtavar Singh, valuables and money shown in the list appended to the FIR were given to the petitioner and others. IT is further averred that when the first informant was insulted by the petitioner, he demanded the property of his daughter to which the petitioner replied that he would not return the same. Thus, there are allegations in the complaint that the petitioner had refused to give back the property of Ranju Bala.