GAZI MD.MASUD ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 9.1.2004 (Annexure -1).

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the filing of this application are that the respondent No. 2 Nasreen Rehana sent a written letter to the officer -in -charge of Madhupur Police Station alleging interalia therein that she was married with Gazi Md. Masud Alam on 25.12.1993 according to the Muslim rites and custom. On the occasion of marriage, her father had given Rs. 50,000.00 in cash jewellery worth 22 tolas, one palang, one sofa and other materials and with these things she went to her sasural.

(3.) THE ground such as lodging of FIR at belated stage, lodging of FIR at Madhupur where respondent No. 2 was residing at the time of lodging of the FIR being beyond the jurisdiction, the case being counter -blast to the Title Matrimonial Suit filed by the husband on 6.12.2003 for decree of divorce and ground taken in lawyer 'snotice sent on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to her husband which differ from facts as alleged in the FIR and all these grounds which has been taken are such which do not make out a case for quashing of the FIR because the offence under Sec. 498 -A, Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence and so long as the marriage persists and cruelty or such things continued for time, such FIR can be lodged or complaint case may be filed. So far as the case being counter -blast to the case filed on behalf of the husband of the complainant -respondent No. 2 being Title Matrimonial Suit No. 199 of 2003 is concerned, the instant FIR is not counter -blast because Annexure -2 is a letter which is lawyer 'snotice sent by lawyer on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and is dated 11.11.2003 whereas the Title Suit No. 199 of 2003 has been filed on 6.12.2003 and it can safely be said that after receipt of the lawyer 'snotice, this Title Matrimonial Suit No. 199 of 2003 has been filed. So far as the lodging of FIR at Madhupur is concerned, that is well within the jurisdiction because the naihar of respondent No. 2 is situated at Madhupur and she was residing there and therefore, lodging of FIR at Madhupur is not beyond jurisdiction and so far as lawyer 'snotice on 11.11.2003 (Annexure -2) which is filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 is concerned, it is clear that the complainant -respondent No. 2 had already sent a lawyer 'snotice alleging more or less the same facts as stated in the complaint petition and as such, there are no difference in the version appearing in the lawyer 'snotice and version appearing in the complaint petition and therefore, this ground is not such which can be considered to quash the first information report.