K L Suri & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Anr.

8. Moreover, even if during the course of investigation, the IO finds that the police does not have jurisdiction to continue with the investigation it can forward the same to the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station. Further, the police even after completion of the investigation and even the Court where a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is filed may after finding that the offence was not triable by the earlier said Court return the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the officer in charge of the Police Station with a direction to present it to the appropriate Court. (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2004 VIII AD(S.C.) 288 and Malkiat Singh v. State, (2005) 121 DLT 668).

9. The Petition is opposed by Respondent No.2 by way of filing a written reply. It is stated that the Petitioners and Nitin and his parents constitute a joint Hindu family. Respondent No.2 was treated with cruelty with regard to demand of dowry thus, on the basis of the averments made in the FIR, the offence under Sections 498-A/406 IPC is constituted. Since part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be said that the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

10. Relying on Preeti Gupta and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, the learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that the Supreme Court has recognized that in recent years there is a tendency to humiliate the husband’s relatives by leveling false allegations against them and that is why the Supreme Court suggested the amendment in the law so that the persons not concerned with the dispute between husband and wife are not unnecessarily harassed.

11. Relying on Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479, the learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that since Nitin and Samridhi (Respondent No.2) were residents of UK except for few days just after their marriage and occasionally visited India in between, the Petitioners who are uncles and cousin of Respondent No2’s husband would hardly have any say in Nitin’s and Samridhi’s affairs or their matrimonial dispute. The learned counsel for the Petitioners refers to Paras 79 to 81 of the report which are extracted hereunder:-

12. Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 the learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that the averments made against the Petitioners are absurd and thus the FIR must be quashed.

13. The Petition is resisted on behalf of Respondent No.2. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 urges that since the Petitioners and Nitin’s parents had a joint family the specific allegations made with regard to demand of dowry and harassment meted out to Respondent No.2 at the hands of the Petitioners cannot be dismissed at this stage. It is urged that Preeti Gupta, Ruchi Majoo and Bhajan Lal are not attracted to the facts of the present case as there are specific allegations against each of the Petitioners which would be decided only during the trial.

14. It is not in dispute that Petitioner No.1 is aged about 78 years whereas Petitioner No.2 is aged about 69 years. Both are permanent residents of Ludhiana. Petitioner No.3 is Nitin’s cousin and is permanent resident of Dubai. As per the allegations leveled by Respondent No.2 which resulted in registration of the instant FIR after 4-5 days of the Respondent No.2’s marriage with Nitin, Nitin asked her to give the gold bangles to his mother. According to her statement made to the police since she had already given the entire jewellery to her mother-in-law (Poonam) she was not inclined to give the gold bangles to her mother-in-law. On this Respondent No.2 was scolded by Petitioner No.2. The relevant portion of the FIR is extracted hereunder:- “…. However, the gold jewellery given to me by my mother in marriage, had already been taken by my mother-in-law. At that time, Nitin’s Tayaji (uncle) Kewal Suri and Tai (aunt) Vimal Suri, E-87, GK-I, New Delhi-110048 were also present. Nitin’s uncle and aunt scolded me on my refusal to give the gold bangles to my mother-in-law Poonam and said that this girl has no manner, she should give her all the jewellery to her mother-in-law (Poonam Suri), it is the custom and her mother-in-law has the right on her all the jewellery items and we have doubled relations, I (Vimal Suri) have two relations with boy i.e. Tai and Mausi. I called Nitin in my room and asked him that please allow me to wear these bangles and I will not give these bangles to you or my mother-inlaw. On this, Nitin gave me beatings…..”

15. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 15.12.2008 when Respondent No.2 reached England her husband Nitin gave her beatings and hurled abuses and demanded a costly watch, diamond jewellery and a sum of `50 lakh for purchasing a house in London. It is alleged that Respondent No.2’s father was informed that if the amount of `50 lakh is not paid then Samridhi will not be able to live with Nitin in London. It is alleged that Respondent No.2’s father gave a watch worth ` 2 lakh but since the demand of ` 50 lakh was not met, Nitin misbehaved with her father and threatened to threw Respondent No.2 out of the house.

16. It is then alleged that on the function of the first wedding anniversary, Respondent No.2’s parents were called to Dubai (at the residence of Petitioner No.3). Respondent No.2’s parents reached on 16.04.2009. On 17.04.2009 she along with her parents reached the house of Puneet where Petitioners No.1 and 2 (Kewal Suri and Vimal Suri) were also present. The three Petitioners insulted Respondent No.2’s father as `50 lakh was not being paid by him as demanded by Nitin Suri. The relevant portion of the FIR is extracted hereunder:- “…. On 17.04.2009 i.e. after only one day, when we reached at the house of Puneet Suri, who is the elder son of Kewal Suri and Vimal Suri and brother of Nitin, immediately on our reaching there, Puneet Suri asked my father in an insulting way that see Thapar Sahib has come with `50 lacs. I and my father felt insulted very much. At that time, Poonam Suri, Brij Suri (Nitin’s fathere) and Nitin Suri were also present there. Puneet again asked that Thapar Sahib if the money is not given then your son-in-law will not be able to buy a house at London. If you cannot give `50 lacs then you should keep your daughter with you. My father requested them with folded hands not to harass my daughter for jewellery and cash, I will fulfill your demands very soon. I, my mother and father felt very much insulted at the house of Puneet on not giving cash and jewellery. Nitin used to give me beatings and abused me oftenly as his demands were not fulfilled…..”

17. It is then alleged that on 09.02.2010 Respondent No.2 along with her parents-in-law and husband reached the house of Petitioners No.1 and 2 at Ludhiana. There again the demand of `50 lakh and diamond jewellery was raised by Petitioners No.1 and 2 and they used abusive language against Respondent No.2’s father-in-law. The FIR says as under:- “….There, Kewal Suri asked me whether your father has given cash `50 lacs and diamond jewellery to Brij or Poonam Suri. When I refused, Kewal Suri called my father cheater. Kewal Suri took the name of my father loudly in an abusive language and said that he says he is very rich and make big promises but has not given the money and diamond jewellery and called my father a liar and said that he is avoiding to give cash and jewellery but has made your burden on us. On this, Vimal Suri said in a taunting language that his father has nothing, he is bankrupt, therefore, he is not giving cash and jewellery despite one and a half years of marriage, we have married our son in a family of miser, jewellery given in the marriage was of inferior quality, which has caused insult to us in our society. He dragged me from hair and said me to ask my father to fulfil the promise made by him. When I could not bear the torturing and taunting of Nitin and his family members, I made phone call to my father and asked him to arrange the amount of minimum ` 20 lacs urgently. On 17.2.2010 again Nitin’s parents Brij and Poonam Suri made and demand of `50 lacs and jewellery. This time, they said that we have married our handsome and intelligent son in a family of miser and they threatened my father that if the cash and jewellery is not arranged immediately, then be ready for its consequences. On 19-20 March, 2010 Puneet Suri also threatened me that if you want to live with Nitin, then you will have to arrange cash `50 lacs and diamond jewellery and you will have to bear the beatings. I was very much upset with the atrocities of Nitin, therefore on 14.4.2010, I called Metropolitan Police at my home by making phone call….”

18. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that all these allegations do not find mention in the written statement to the divorce proceedings undertaken by Nitin in the English Family Court. Yet that by itself will not be a ground for quashing of the FIR. May be that the Petitioners were not the beneficiaries of the dowry given or demanded by Nitin and his parents, yet all these facts have to be gone into by the Trial Court at the time of framing of the charges. The appreciation of evidence cannot be done by the High Court in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code). Similarly, the probability of the allegations made in the FIR and the defence raised by the persons accused of the offence cannot be gone into proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. The principles laid down in Bhajan Lal, Ruchi Majoo and Preeti Gupta for quashing of the FIR do not apply to the facts of the instant case. The Petition therefore has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

19. Pending Applications stand disposed of.

JUDGE APRIL 02, 2013 vk