Full Text
09.12.2010
\
Present: Mr.Harsh jaidka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the respondent/State with 51 Ravi
Shankar, P.5. Tilak Nagar.
+Cri.M.A. 18366/2010 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.3826/2010
Kewal Krishan, Bhagat Ram, Kailash Kumari, Rubi Rani, Harish Bhola and Manohar La!", the petitioners herein are seeking quashing of FIR NO. 867/04, P.5. Tilak Nagar and the proceedings consequent thereto.
Briefly stated, relevant facts for disposal of the petition as per the
FIR are that Ms. Priya Verma, resident of Tilak Nagar, Delhi lodged a complaint with Crime Against Women Cell, Nanak Pura alleging that she was married to Mohit Verma on 26th October, 2001 at Ludhiana, Punjab.
She claimed that at the time of marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry including jewellery, clothes, furniture and utensils etc. After the marriage, the petitioner, his parents and siblings as well as his maternal uncle started raising demand for dowry. It was also stated that thereafter, when the parents of the complainant gave some Diwali gifts, the in-laws of the complainant were not satisfied as the gifts were nowhere of their expectations. As a result of continuous torture and dowry demand, the complainant's mental condition got disturbed and therefore, she was required to be treated at various hospitals at Delhi, 2010:DHC:9149
Patiala and Ludhiana. She was blessed with a female child on ogth July, 2003 and she was brought to her parental home by her mother on 18th August, 2003 and since then, her husband and in-laws have no communication with her. It was claimed in the complaint that the attempts of reconciliation made in january, 2004 failed and instead of reconciling the matter, the husband and in-laws of the complainant pressed their demand for dowry and they did not return her 'stree-dhan' lying at her matrimonial home.
On the basis of above allegation, FIR was registered.
Status report was filed by the SHO, P.S.Tilak Nagar in Cri.M.C.
1852/2008 filed by husband of the complainant Mohit Verma. In this status report, it was stated that some of the dowry articles were recovered and charge sheet was filed on opt April, 2006. It was also stated therein that the complainant Priya Verma committed suicide on
20th April, 2006 at her parental home and the inquest proceedings were conducted by SDM, Patel Nagar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of courts in Delhi. Learned counsel submitted that when the FIR is read as a whole, it is apparent that marriage took place in Ludhiana and parties started staying soon thereafter at Ludhiana. After the return of the complainant to Delhi, there was no communication between the parties as stated in the complaint.
Thus, on the strength of the judgments in Y. Abraham Ajith V.
Inspector of Police, Chennai 2004 CriLJ 4180, Mohan Lal V. State
~ ·-·-.
JUDGMENT
2000 CriLJ 3762 (Del), Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia V. State of Punjab 1986, CriLJ 2070 (P & H) and Bhura Ram V. State of Rajasthan 2008 CriLJ 3494 (SC), it is submitted that the FIR be quashed. Learned counsel further contended that even the petition filed by Mohit Verma for quashing of FIR against him was allowed by learned Single judge of this court vide order dated 13th February, 2009. Learned APP has fairly conceded that issue of territorial jurisdiction -' of Delhi courts in this factum has already been decided by learned Single Judge of this court qua husband of the complainant Mohit Verma in Cri.M.C. No. 1852/2008 vide order dated 13.02.2004, holding the Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction in this matter and that said order has not been challenged by the prosecution. Thus he has conceded that Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction in this matter. In the light of decision of Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the order dated 13th February, 2009 of this 1 court in Cri.M.C. No.1852/2008 titled 'Mohit Verma Vs. State', there is no justification in continuation of proceedings on the basis of FIR No. 867/04, P.S. Tilak Nagar when it is clear that Delhi courts have no jurisdiction to proceed with the same. Accordingly, FIR No. 867/04, P.S. Tilak Nagar as well as the consequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed. Petition is disposed of. (AJIT~HOKE) JUDGE
JUDGMENT