Crl. Misc No. M-7670 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-7670 of 2009 Date of decision : 25.03.2009 Narinder Singh Thiara ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking quashing of an FIR No. 12 dated 29.01.2003 registered against him under Sections 498-A, 494, 406 410 IPC registered at police station Sadar Moga on 19.01.2003. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga vide order dated 19.07.20003 as he never submitted to the process of law. The present petition has been preferred almost six years after lodging of the FIR on the ground that no offence is made out in the FIR as summons/warrants of arrest were never served on the petitioner and no efforts were made out to serve him at his address in USA. No offence has been committed within India and thus there is jurisdictional error in the proceedings instituted in the country. Earlier, petitioner had preferred a petition bearing No. Crl. Misc. No. 24485-M of 2008 for quashing of the FIR which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.09.2008. The present petition has been filed seeking the Crl. Misc No. M-7670 of 2009 2 same relief and on the same pleas. The allegations leveled in the FIR by Paramjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner, are that she was married to petitioner on 13.09.2009. Within few days of marriage her in-laws starting demanding dowry and other articles. She brought Rs. 60,000/- in cash from her parents and gave it to them. However, their greed was not satisfied. The husband (petitioner herein) went to America after one and half month of the marriage, promising that he would take the complainant to USA. The complainant thus, stayed with her in-laws, where she was maltreated by her sisters-in-law. The complainant informed her husband but of no avail. According to the complainant, she was told by her in-laws that people spend about 20-25 lacs for going abroad but her parents had not even given a Zen car. According to the complainant, during this period her husband returned to India. The complainant persuaded her parents who gave Rs. 3,50,000/- by mortgaging their land but still her husband refused to take her abroad. She was told that he was still living in USA with her earlier wife. Thus, a fraud has been played upon her as in the marriage certificate he had shown himself as a divorcee. According to the FIR, instead of taking his wife abroad, the petitioner had completed all the formalities for taking her parents to America. It is at that time the instant FIR was lodged. According to the averments made in this petition, it is evident that the petitioner earlier married one Manjeet Kaur, who was a permanent resident of USA and two children were born to him from the said wedlock. However, the petitioner claims that the earlier marriage ended in divorce. The petitioner, thereafter, married the complainant Paramjit Kaur but never took her to USA. On the other hand, she was harassed at the hands of her in- laws and subjected to cruelty. Crl. Misc No. M-7670 of 2009 3 After the FIR was registered at the instance of complainant the petitioner never submitted to the process of law and was declared a proclaimed offender by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga on 19.07.2003. The petitioner now seeks quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings without having any intention to submit to the process of law. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out from the allegations leveled in the FIR is devoid of merit. The petitioner has clearly alleged in the FIR that immediately after marriage, dowry demands were made from her and she brought Rs. 60,000/- in cash from her parents and gave it to her in-laws, even before her husband left for America. The another allegations in the FIR is that another sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid by the complainants’ family to the petitioners’ family on the promise that complainant would be sent to abroad to join her husband. However, no steps were taken by the petitioner to take the complainant abroad. Instead, according to averments made in the petition, the petitioner took his parents to USA. Under these circumstance, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from the allegations leveled in the FIR. I also do not find force in the arguments of the counsel that no offence was committed in India and thus, there is jurisdictional error in the proceedings. It is apparent from the reading of the FIR that the complainant alleged that within six weeks of her marriage, she was subjected to harassment for not bringing sufficient dowry. She was harassed by her in- laws for not being able to fulfill their demands and was thus, not allowed to join her husband in USA. The argument that no offence has been committed in India is not at all convincing. Crl. Misc No. M-7670 of 2009 4 As regards, submission of the counsel that efforts should have been made to issue summons/warrants in USA is also devoid of force. He having come to know of the proceedings pending against him in the Court of law, he can still submit to the Court of competent jurisdiction and raise all his pleas. I thus, do not find any ground for quashing of the FIR which has been sought six years after it was lodged. Neither the petitioner ever submitted before the investigating agency nor before the trial court. It appears from the record annexed with the petition, that challan has already been presented against the petitioner. Be that as it may, in case the petitioner submits before the trial court, he shall be at liberty to raise all his pleas before the said court. However, there is no ground to quash the FIR as the petitioner never submitted to the process of law and was declared a proclaimed offender. Moreover, the earlier petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.09.2008. It would thus be appropriate for the petitioner to submit to the process of law instead of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. repeatedly for quashing of the FIR. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2008(3) R.C.R.(Criminal), 135 to buttress his arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction of the proceedings in India. However, in my considered view the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the husband and wife (complainant) were undisputedly residing in Kuwait at all material times. The complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari in India alleging physical and mental torture at Crl. Misc No. M-7670 of 2009 5 the hands of husband at the time when the couple were residing in Kuwait. It was thus held that no offence was committed within the jurisdiction of India. However, in the instant case the petitioner was still in India when the complainant alleges that she was harassed for dowry. Her parents parted with money and a promise was made that she would be taken abroad. However, a fraud was played on her as she was not taken to USA for joining her husband. Another judgment relied upon by learned counsel is Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2009(1) RCR (Criminal), 885 to emphasize the question of jurisdiction. According to the said judgment the venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by the averment contained in the complaint or charge sheet. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. There can be no dispute with the said proposition of law laid down in the said judgment. However, in the present case it is not possible for this Court to hold at this stage that no offence was committed within the local jurisdiction, where the challan has been presented. The petitioner can raise this issue before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. Thus, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. The petition is hereby dismissed. 02.04.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE