IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 26 of 2007 Amarpal Singh & Others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarkhand & Another. ..…. Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate for respondent no. 01. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for respondent no. 02. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate for respondent no. 01. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for respondent no. 02. 2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal-2008, CRLMP No. 13220-13221 has observed that if a prayer for early hearing is made to the High Court, it will be considered by the High Court in view of the fact that long period is over. 3. Since, both the parties are ready to argue the case, as such, hearing of the case was made. 4. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the chargesheet dated 24.03.2006 (Annexure-9 to the accompanying affidavit) as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1658/2006, State Vs. Amarpal Singh & Others under Sections 498-A, 504 & 506 IPC and Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dehradun. 5. In a nutshell, the complainant/respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C on 21.10.2005 before the Special Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dehradun with regard to dowry demand and cruelty committed upon her niece for fulfilling the dowry demand. Subsequent thereto, an F.I.R was also lodged on 15.12.2005 by respondent no. 2 against the petitioners. On the aforesaid report lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 2, the police investigated the matter and filed chargesheet against the petitioners namely Amarpal Singh, Manmohan Singh & Smt. Amarjeet Kaur who are the husband, father-in-law & mother-in-law of the victim-Smt. Taranjeet Kaur respectively. Thereafter, the magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid sections of IPC against the petitioners. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said cognizance order, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that bare perusal of the F.I.R itself suggests that the families of the petitioners and Taran Jeet Kaur-the victim/the niece of respondent no. 02 are the permanent resident of Faridabad (Hariyana). The marriage between petitioner no. 01-Amarpal and Smt. Taran Jeet Kaur was solemanized at Faridabad and the petitioners have never visited Dehradun. The allegations made in the complaint dated 21.10.2005 as well as the statements of Smt. Taranjeet Kaur-the victim, Govind Singh & Ravindra Singh who is the son of Govind Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, show that respondent no. 1 has no territorial jurisdiction for registration of the F.I.R against the petitioners at Dehradun and further, respondent no. 1 has also no jurisdiction to file chargesheet against the petitioners before the court at Dehradun. The complaint is liable to be dismissed at that score only. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the courts at Dehradun had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint; it is mentioned in the F.I.R that in the month of August, 2005 when Smt. Taran Jeet Kaur was pregnant, the petitioners came to Dehradun and left Taran Jeet Kaur in the house of Govind Singh-respondent no. 02 at Dehradun, after abusing and demanding dowry of rupees fifty thousand from the victim and the complainant. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further buttressed his arguments by stating that the after the said incident as claimed in the F.I.R, Smt. Taran Jeet Kaur went to Faridabad (Hariyana) where the child was born and the F.I.R should have been filed where she was residing at the time of filing of the F.I.R. 10. The F.I.R dated 15.12.2005 lodged at the instance of the complainant/respondent no. 2 reads as under: “ 1&;g fd izkFkhZ xzke Qrsgiqj ektjh] Fkkuk Mksbokyk dk fuoklh gS] izkFkhZ ds HkkbZ dh ezR;q 1996 esa gks x;h FkhA mldh yM+dh rjuthr dkSj esjs ikl gh jgrh Fkh rFkk eSaus gh mldk ykyu ikyu fd;kA o"kZ 2004 esa rjuthr dkSj dh 'kknh vejiky flag vfHk;qDr la0&1 ds lkFk fnukad 26&9&2004 dks dh Fkh] yM+ds okyksa ds dgus ij 'kknh Qjhnkckn tkdj dh Fkh rFkk 'kknh esa vius gSfl;r ls vf/kd ngst fn;k FkkA 2& ;g fd izkFkhZ dh Hkrhth dh 'kknh ds ckn ls leLr vfHk;qDrXk.k ,d jk; gksdj mls ngst ds fy, rax o ijs’kku djus yxsA ;g ckr eq>s esjh Hkrhth us crk;h rks eSa Qjhnkckn x;k rks bu yksxksa us dgk fd vki vius nkekn dks vkVksfjD’kk [kjhn dj nks rks izkFkhZ us iSls dk izcU/k djds 50]000&00 #Ik;s tek djds ,d vkVks fjD’kk QkbZusUl djk;k rFkk vkVks fjD’kk vejiky dks fn;kA dqN fnu rd rks ;s yksx lgh jgs] mlds ckn fQj bUgksaus esjh Hkrhth dks ijs’kku djuk 'kq# dj fn;kA eSa dbZ ckj Qjhnkckn x;k] fdUrq bu nksuksa dh ekax tkjh jgh rFkk 50]000&00 #Ik;s dh ekWx vkSj djus yxs] vfHk;qDrx.k us esjh Hkrhth dks cgqr ijs’kku fd;k] mls Hkq[kk j[kk rFkk esjh Hkrhth bl le; 8 ekg dh xHkZorh gS] xHkZorh voLFkk esa vfHk;qDrx.k us vxLr 2005 esa esjh Hkrhth dks ysdj xkWo Qrsgiqj ektjh vk;s rFkk bu yksxksa us dgk fd rqEgkjh yM+dh vc ;gh jgsxh rFkk rqe 50]000&00 #Ik;s nks] rc rqEgkjh yM+dh Qjhnkckn tk;sxhA eSaus #Ik;s nsus ls euk fd;k rks bu yksxksa us xUnh xUnh xkfy;kW o tku ls ekjus dh /kefd;kW nh vkSj dgk fd rqe lcdks ekj nsaxsA 3&;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k & 1] 2 o 3 us esjh xHkZorh Hkrhth dks esjs ?kj esa dgk fd rsjs isV esa ykrs ekjsXksa ugha rks rw vius ek;ds ls gesa 50]000&00 #Ik;sa fnyk rFkk xHkZorh voLFkk esa esjh Hkrhth dks NksM+dj pys x;sA 4& ;g fd izkFkhZ us dkQh izkFkZuk dh rFkk buds ikl Hkh x;k] fdUrq ;s yksx viuh ekWx ij vVy jgsaA ” The bare perusal of the above high lighted portion clearly reveals that the demand of dowry by the petitioners was made at Dehradun. The victim-Smt. Taranjeet Kaur was also ill-treated at Dehradun. 11. Section 178 of Cr.P.C which relates to place of inquiry or trial provides that “ (a) when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.” 12. In view of above provision, it is clear that the complaint can be filed either at Faridabad or at Dehradun for the alleged incident in the said F.I.R. Thus, I am completely in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents and do not find any force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the F.I.R which was lodged against the petitioners by Govind Singh- respondent no. 02 is a counter blast of the complaint dated 28.9.2005 lodged by the petitioners against the victim-Smt. Taranjeet Kaur before S.S.P, Faridabad (Hariyana); respondent no. 2 became annoyed with the petitioner no. 01-Amarpal Singh and his family members for the reason that a complaint has been made to the S.S.P against her niece-Smt. Taranjeet Kaur; the complaint as well as the F.I.R lodged by respondent no. 2 is a counter blast to the said complaint lodged by the petitioners. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions. It was contended that the court has to see as to whether there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners or not at this stage; moreover, the statements of Govind Singh, Taran Jeet Kaur and Ravindra Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C which have been filed alongwith the petition support each other on material points; and the court, at this stage, has to see that either a prima facie case to proceed against the accused petitioners is made out or not. 15. The perusal of the statements reveals that the aforesaid witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story. Perusal of the complaint dated 28.09.2005 filed before the S.S.P, Faridabad by the petitioners also reveals that Amarpal Singh has admitted therein that he went to Dehradun prior to filing of this complaint. The mode, manner as well as the purpose is different according to the complainant and likewise, by Smt. Taran Jeet Kaur. At this stage, it cannot be held merely by filing the complaint to the S.S.P, Faridabad that this F.I.R lodged by respondent no. 2 is the counter blast of the said complaint. No further proceeding has been initiated on the said complaint lodged by the petitioners. The perusal of the statements filed alongwith the petition as well as the documents on record reveals that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance of the case and I do not find any infirmity in taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate and filing of the chargesheeet by the police concerned. 16. Thus, in view of above, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 25.09.2008 V.K.