Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: May 26, 2010 Smt. Preeti Bulagan and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. TS Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. ML Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by the petitioners, Preeti Bulagan and Ashna Anand, is for quashing of the FIR No. 780 dated 26.12.2006 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Sections 498-A, 406, 354, 506/34 IPC, qua them, which arises out of the complaint dated 21.12.2006, filed by respondent No.2/complainant-Neetu, pending in the Court of Smt. Manisha Batra, CJM, Rohtak and all other proceedings arising therefrom. They have pleaded in the petition that their brother Amit Anand got married with the complainant on 24.6.2005. Unfortunately, that matrimonial alliance ran into rough weather right from the day one and since then the complainant is systematically harassing and threatening them Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 2 and her in-laws. She filed complaint dated 4.4.2006 against them, Amit Anand and their parents, before the SSP, Faridabad, in which extravagant allegations were levelled, charging them for the acts of commissions and omissions with oblique motive to entangle all the relations under various sections of IPC. All of them were summoned by the Women Cell to appear before it on 1.5.2006. A detailed representation was made by Amit Anand to the SSP, Faridabad, to save his life and the members of his family. On 29.5.2006 a compromise was effected between him and the complainant and it was settled that they would reside separate and would shift to the other house. Accordingly, they started living in a separate house. After they shifted to the separate accommodation, alongwith their all the household goods and articles on account of that compromise, the Women Cell, recommended to the SSP for not proceeding with the complaint. On 23.12.2006, the complainant left the matrimonial house in order to live with J.M. Malhotra, with the intention to hatch a conspiracy against them and their family members. She, in collusion with her parents and other associates, filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code in the Court of CJM, Rohtak, against them and other family members for the registration of the FIR. The police, without conducting any sort of investigation or inquiry, registered the said FIR against them and other family members. From the bare perusal of the FIR, no such offence is made out against them as there is not even a slight allegation of demand of dowry against them. Petitioner No.1 was married and had been residing at Agra (U.P.), which is at the distance of 250 kms. from the Faridabad, for the last 14 years. Thus, there was no opportunity for her to harass or humiliate the complainant for insufficient dowry. Petitioner No.2 is 23 years old Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 3 unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant and is still pursuing her studies. She had been residing separate from the complainant and her husband. There was no occasion for her to demand anything by way of dowry. They also pleaded that the courts at Rohtak have no jurisdiction to try the case as the complainant had no point of time resided at that place and even the marriage was solemnized at Faridabad and she was employed at Faridabad itself. On notice of motion having been issued, the respondents appeared and filed their respective replies. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 was filed by Ramesh Kumar, Inspector. He stated therein that after registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and incriminating evidence was collected against the petitioners and, as such, challan has already been filed against them and others. It has come during the evidence that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners, their parents and brother, who is the husband of the complainant. All of them used to harass her with regard to the demand of dowry. The complainant was subjected to cruelty and was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Respondent No. 2/complainant filed the reply in the form of an affidavit. She deposed that specific allegations have been made in her complaint against the petitioners. All these allegations amount to treating her with mental cruelty. She apprehends danger and threats to her life at the hands of the petitioners and that fact was also mentioned in the complaint. The petition does not fall within the circumference of the guidelines/criteria for quashing of a criminal complaint. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 4 petitioner No.1 is married sister of the husband of the complainant and her marriage took place 14 years back and since then she is residing with her in- laws in Agra, which is more than 250 kms. from the place where the complainant had been residing with her husband. There was no occasion for that petitioner to harass the complainant or to treat her with cruelty on the ground of demand of dowry. Petitioner No.2 is the unmarried sister and no such offence is made out against her from the contents of the FIR. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in such like matrimonial disputes, the complainant tries to involve all the relatives by way of pressure tactics. Previously also a similar complaint was given by the complainant before the SSP, Faridabad, in which a compromise was effected and she started living with her husband separate from other family members. There was no question of any such cruel treatment having been given to her by the other family members after that compromise. That shows that this FIR is a result of malice intention on the part of the complainant. Even from the contents of the FIR , it cannot be said that the petitioners committed any offences mentioned therein. He also contended that the marriage of the parties was performed at Faridabad and at no point of time they lived at Rohtak and, as such, the courts at Rohtak have no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case. He tried to support his contentions by relying on judgments in Anita and others versus State of Punjab 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 313, Harjinder Kaur v. State of Punjab 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 332, Y. Abraham Ajith and ors. Versus Inspector of Police, Chennai and another 2004 (4) Rrl. C.C. 466, Ramesh and others versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 67, Mohd. Yaseen & Ors versus State of Punjab 2006 (3) RCR. (Criminal) 752 and Anisha Bhandari versus State of Haryana,2005 (2) RCR Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 5 (Criminal) 429. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there are specific allegations against both the petitioners in the FIR and from those allegations offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC are clearly made out. For the purpose of the present petition, the facts, as stated in the FIR, are to be taken at their face value and once it is found that the offences are made out from those facts, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Even after the said compromise, the complainant was treated with cruelty by the petitioners and other family members and they had been harassing her on the demand of dowry. The FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the courts at Rohtak have no jurisdiction to try the case. A part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Rohtak also. At the time of arguments, it was not disputed that petitioner No.1 is the married sister of the husband, whose marriage took place 15 years back and since then she is residing with her in-laws in Agra. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.2 is the unmarried sister of the husband of respondent No.2. It was held by this Court in Harjinder Kaur's case (supra) that there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and the women are abusing the beneficial provisions of Section 498A IPC. Similar observations were made in Anita' case (supra). These observations are to be kept in mind while deciding the present petition. It is to be seen as to what specific allegations have been made against the petitioners in the FIR. The following are the allegations against them:- Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 6 (i) As per the demand of the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant, one gold set of “tops” were given to both the petitioners; (ii) the petitioner No.1 visited her parental house in December, 2005 and had demanded gold bangles from the complainant; and (iii) the petitioners could also kill the complainant by burning her alive and/or by administering poison. It has no where been stated in the FIR that the above said gold articles were given to the petitioners by way of dowry or that demand of gold of bangles were made by way of dowry. There is no allegations in the FIR that the petitioners have also been harassing the complainant or treated her with cruelty on the demand of dowry. It is not the case of the complainant that there was actual threats to kill her and there was only apprehension in her mind that she could be killed by the petitioners. Therefore, on the face of the FIR, it cannot be held that any such offences under Sections 406, 498A IPC or Section 506 IPC are made out against the petitioners. That itself is a ground for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings qua them. So far the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same is kept open to be decided by the trial court as anything to be recorded in the present case is likely to prejudice the mind of the trial court. In the result, this petition is hereby accepted. The FIR and subsequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed qua the present petitioners. May 26, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-20113 of 2009 7