RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THE prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is for quashing of FIR No. 204 dated October 16, 2002 registered under Sections 498-A/ 406 IPC at Police Station, Salawas, District Jhajjar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that petitioner No. 1 was married to Neelam d/o Om Parkash on June 2, 2001. Petitioner No. 2 is mother of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 is father of petitioner No. 1. After the marriage, they resided at the residence of petitioner No. 1 at House No. 1298/31, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak. Due to certain difference between the parties, Neelam left the matrimonial home and shifted to her parents' house in village Bambuliya, Tehsil and District Jhajjar. On October 16, 2002, the FIR in question was lodged by wife Neelam under sections 498-A/406 IPC with the allegations that after her marriage when she was living with her husband and family members, once she was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her house on the promise that same would be returned within one month, which according to the complainant were handed over to petitioner No. 2. Thereafter, another demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made, which was also fulfilled. However, still being dissatisfied the complainant was regularly harassed with the result, she was shunted out of the house. Petitioner No. 1, who appeared in person, submitted that FIR in question is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that same has been registered at Police Station, Salawas, District Jhajjar whereas none of the alleged offence was committed in the territorial jurisdiction of that Police Station as on plain reading of the FIR, it is clear that all the allegations regarding occurrence of various incidences took place at his residence at Rohtak. Accordingly, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In addition to this, he submitted that vide judgment dated July 26, 2006, the complainant has already got divorce from the petitioner No. 1 and the order was not appealed against by him. He has relied upon the judgments in Bhupinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1991(2) RCR(Crl.) 225 (P&H), Gurmukh Singh and others v. Bhupinder Kaur, 1991(2) RCR(Crl.) 185 (P&H), Anil Kumar v. Rita Kumari, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 813 (P&H), Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004(3) RCR(Crl.) 988 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 455 (SC), Ramesh and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(2) RCR(Criminal) 68 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 537 : 2005(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 565 and Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, 2007(1) RCR(Criminal) 513 (SC).
(3.) IN response to the contentions raised by petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that marriage in question was solemnized at the place of complainant and even the amount was brought by her from parents. Accordingly, Police Station, Salawas and consequently Courts at Jhajjar have the jurisdiction to investigate and try the case. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that after the complainant was shunted out of her matrimonial home at Rohtak where she was harassed, she having shifted to her parents home in District Jhajjar and harassment being a continuing offence, even police Station, Salawas will have the jurisdiction to investigate the matter. He further submitted that charges have already been framed and case is at evidence stage.;