Hon'ble VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C, the petitioners have prayed for quashing FIR No.53/2004 and charge-sheet No.20 and entire proceedings pending in the Court of ACJM, Bhilwara in FIR No.53/2004 for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323/120-B, I.P.C., read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station, Crime Against Women Cell, Bhilwara.
(2.) MAIN contention of the petitioners is that marriage was solemnized at Delhi and further, petitioner and respondent No.3 were living at Delhi in a rented accommodation in different parts of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is also pleaded in the petition that different false complaints were filed by respondent No.3 alleging harassment and cruelty at Lajpat Nagar Women Crime Cell, Amar Colony and Women Crime Cell, Nanakpura. In all these matters, compromise took place, therefore, obviously no incident took place in the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan, therefore, the investigating agency of Bhilwara had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and, so also, cognizance taken by the trial Court dated 20.12.2005 by issuing bailable warrants to the petitioners is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when no occurrence took place in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan and marriage took place at Gurudwara in Bali Nagar, New Delhi and reception was hosted by petitioner No.2 at Rajori Garden, then, it cannot be said that there is any jurisdiction in the State of Rajasthan or at Bhilwara, therefore, FIR and investigation conducted in the FIR and, so also, proceedings pending in the trial Court deserve to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners cited the following judgments : (1) Y. Abraham & Others Vs. Inspector of Police, (2004) 8 SCC 100. (2) Ramesh & Others vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2005 AIR SCW 1319- (3) Tarsem Singh vs. Amrit Kaur, 1995 Crl. L.J. 3560. (4) Dhirendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (1) WLC 292 = RLW 2007(1) (Raj.) 55. (5) Manish Ratan Vs. State of M.P. & Others, (2007) 1 SCC 262 = RLW 2007(1) SC 784. (6) Kishan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) Crl. L.R. 1439. (7) Asit Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha, 2007 0 AIR(SCW) 3492 = RLW 2007(4) SC 3074. (8) Sirdhar Reddy vs. State of A.P, & Others, 1996 Crl. L.J. 1469. While citing the above judgments, it is submitted that FIR as well as whole proceedings conducted in pursuance of the above FIR may be quashed and set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at length, I have perused the FIR which is filed by respondent No.3. It is admitted position of the case that complainant respondent No.3 is permanent resident of Singhu Nagar, Bhilwara and, at the time of filing the FIR, she was residing at Sindhu Nagar, Bhilwara in the jurisdiction of the City Kotwali, Bhilwara. In the complaint so filed by the complainant in the Court of Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara, it is specifically stated by the complainant in para 2 that on 02.11.2003 when complainant was forcibly sent out from the house in Delhi, at that time, two informations were given by the complainant to the police - one at Delhi and another at Bhilwara. After filing the complaint at Bhilwara, the petitioners came at Bhilwara and in front of society members they admitted their mistake and made requests that to save their family life, she may be sent with them. Upon the said requests made at Bhilwara, the father of the complainant after taking into consideration his daughter's life, sent her to Delhi; but, again, their behaviour changed and became quarrelsome at Delhi and while using filthy words all the petitioners told her that, JUDGEMENT_1895_RAJLW3_2011Image1.jpg
(3.) IN the complaint, it is also stated that every day complainant was beaten by the accused persons and they were demanding the cost of INdica car and, upon refusal to pay the said amount, they forcibly sent the complainant out from the house from where the complainant came back to Bhilwara on 19.05.2004; but, after reaching Bhilwara, she was repeatedly threatened as per allegation levelled by the petitioners that if she took any action at Bhilwara, then, she will face consequences. IN the FIR, it is categorically stated that after coming from Delhi she made a police complaint that repeatedly she is receiving telephone calls from Delhi, in which, the petitioners are threatening that if she will take any action against them, then, she will be taken to task by them. On the basis of the above facts, in my opinion, it cannot be said that there is no territorial jurisdiction left at Bhilwara to agitate the grievance by the complainant, therefore, as per provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is open for the complainant wife to take recourse to law for taking action against husband and in-laws if they commit offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. In none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners it is held that in the facts in existence in the present case no investigation can be made by the police upon complaint filed by the complainant if part of the cause of action arose at a particular place. It is also worthwhile to observe that in the event of forcible ousting of the wife from her matrimonial home, the ousted wife is left with none other option than return to her parents' home and since such ouster and return to parents' home is caused by her in-laws, the question of territorial jurisdiction is decided by the event itself that where she has been thrown out. Admittedly, each time the complainant was forced to quit her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws she returned to her father's home at Bhilwara. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction does not arise if the complainant is taking recourse to law at Bhilwara. Facts of the cited cases are altogether different because the present case is on better footing inasmuch asm the year 2003 the petitioners came to Bhilwara to strike compromise and, upon compromise being arrived at, the petitioners took the complainant with them from Bhilwara to Delhi. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. ;