- (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 29.7.2013, under Sections 498-A,506,120-B IPC registered at Police Station Div. No.2, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. Said FIR was registered on the premise of complaint made by complainant-Mehak Puri stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Varun Verma (petitioner No.1) on 15.3.2012 at Pathankot (Punjab) who was working in broadcom corporation in San Diego (USA). She went to USA on dependable visa on 29.7.2012. Her inlaws went to USA on visitors visa on 5.5.2013. She alleged that the accused persons i.e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law harassed her for dowry and wanted payment from her parents to purchase a house. This step of in-laws, had forced her to stay separately with her parents in USA. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered under Sections 498-A,506,120-B IPC.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint was made through e-mail which ultimately took the shape of FIR. The said e-mail was routed through USA after initiation of divorce proceedings in USA by husband which itself shows that in order to counter blast, the criminal proceedings were initiated in India which are not legally permissible. He further submits that the husband and the wife (respondent No.2) were residing in USA and the alleged occurrence, if any, was of abroad and the police in India has no jurisdiction to inquire into the matter. He further submits that in case any offence is committed outside India, that cannot be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Even the police has not taken any step to patch up the matter. He placed reliance on the judgments rendered in Sanjeev Majoo & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 7 RCR(Cri) 1564, Amrik Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, Crl.Misc. No.M- 315 of 2011, decided on 5.9.2013 and Rajesh Gutta v. State of A.P., through P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others, 2011 5 RCR(Cri) 452in support of his contentions.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the marriage between the complainant and petitioner No.1 took place in India. He further submits that after ten days of marriage, the husband left for USA but came back to India in September 2012 and demanded an amount of Rs.10 lacs which was paid in cash at Moga (Punjab). He further submits that even the recovery of dowry articles were made from India as per recovery memos Annexures R2/1 and R2/2. He also submits that section 181(4) of CrPC provides that in case any offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust is committed or any part of the property which is subject matter of the offence was received or retained or to be returned or accounted for, then it can be inquired or tried within local jurisdiction of the Court within whose jurisdiction the said offence has been committed.;