RAJENDRA NATH DATT Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
LAWS(P&H)-2007-1-44
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 18,2007

Rajendra Nath Datt Appellant
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No. 188 dated 15.6.2005 registered under the provisions of Sections 406, 498-A, 506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh.
(2.) RAJENDRA Nath - petition No. 1 was married to the complainant - Roma Datt on 16.11.1986 at Karnal. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of Rajendra Nath Datt. The FIR under the aforesaid provisions of law, at the behest of the complainant, even though after several years of marriage, reflects the ill-treatment meted out to the complainant. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties had got married at Karnal and had shifted to Delhi thereafter. Subsequently they resided at Vadodara and after nine years, the complainant is stated to have come to Chandigarh at the house of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Since the marriage was performed at Karnal and subsequently the parties resided at Delhi and Vadodara, there was no question of handing over the articles of dowry at Chandigarh where the FIR is stated to have been lodged. Reference was also made to the articles of dowry as reflected in Annexure P-2. He contends that these articles were in Vadodara and not with the petitioners. On the strength of the aforesaid contention, it was sought to be pleaded that no cause of action had accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh. Hence, FIR deserves to be quashed in view of the provisions of Sections 177 and 178 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as AIR 2004 SC 4286.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contends that a perusal of the FIR with a specific reference to para Nos. 12 to 16 thereof clearly reveals that even if offence of Section 406 is not made out to have been committed at Chandigarh, yet the provisions of Section 498-A are clearly attracted and establish the commission of offence at Chandigarh.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.