@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Hon''ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta
1. By the present petition the Petitioners inter alia pray for quashing of the FIR No. 90/2010 u/s 406/498A IPC PS North Rohini, Delhi or in the alternative transfer of investigation in the said FIR to the concerned police station having jurisdiction to investigate the same.
2. As per the Petitioners the abovementioned FIR registered on the complaint of Respondent No. 3 who is the wife of Petitioner No.1 is a gross abuse of the process of law and has been registered in a most unfair and malafide manner. The allegations made in the FIR in question prima facie do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and even if the same is disclosed then admittedly the place of occurrence of the alleged offence is outside Delhi that is at Bangalore, Karnataka where the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 resided together as husband and wife. Thus, the investigating officer from Police Station Rohini North, New Delhi has no jurisdiction to investigate the offence and the investigation is required to be transferred to the concerned police station at Bangalore.
3. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on Manish Satan and others v. State of M.P. 2007 (1) SCC 265 ;
4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the perusal of the FIR reveals the allegations of harassment, entrustment, demand and accounting for of the Streedhan at Delhi. It is contended that since part of cause of action has taken place in Delhi the police at Delhi has rightly registered the FIR and is investigating into it. The Respondent No. 3 after returning to her parental home is now staying in Delhi and has demanded the return of streedhan at Delhi. Ah. offence u/s 406 IPC is a continuing offence and as per Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. in a case of criminal breach of trust, the court where the property has to be accounted for, has jurisdiction to try the offence. Moreover, in terms of Section 178 (c) and 179 Cr.P.C. the Court within whose local jurisdiction the consequence of the act have ensued also has territorial jurisdiction to inquire and try the case. The present petition is not maintainable as even if after investigation it is found out that no cause of action has taken place at Delhi on filing of the charge sheet at the lime of taking cognizance the learned Trial Court is required to transfer the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on
5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 reiterating the contentions of the learned Additional Counsel contends that there are clear allegations of harassment, entrustment, demand and return of the dowry articles at Delhi. Thus the police of PS North Rohini have rightly registered the FIR and is competent to investigate the same. Reliance is placed on
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of offences at Delhi. The Sagan ceremony and the marriage between the Petitioner No. land the Respondent No. 3 was solemnized at Delhi. The parties resided at Delhi for three days when the Petitioner No. 3 complained about the gift items to the parents of Respondent No.3, when she went to their house along with some relatives and in front of all the relatives taunted them for giving cheap gifts and returned the gift items saying that they were not up to the standard and instead demanded cash for purchasing the same. Thereafter the parties went to Pune where the jewellery was taken from the Respondent No. 3 and the Respondent No.3 was harassed and taunted for bringing cheap things and cash was demanded for purchasing gifts and jewellery according to their standard. The Petitioner No. 1 also abused and taunted her and demanded, cash as compensation of the substandard items gifted by her father. Thereafter they shifted to Bangalore where again harassment and demand continued. The Respondent No. 3 finally returned to Delhi and even on returning to Delhi she was threatened by her in-laws and husband.
7. In Satvinder Kaur (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that the Delhi police Station did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence held:
8. In our view, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. The limited question is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that Delhi Police Station did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. From the discussion made by the learned Judge, it appears that learned Judge has considered the provisions applicable for criminal trial. The High Court arrived at the conclusion by appreciating the allegation made by the parties that the S.H.O., Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant because the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C. arose at Patiala. In our view, the findings given by the High Court are, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous because:
(1) The S.H.O. has statutory authority u/s 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an F.I.R. is lodged.
(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the Investigating Officer has no territorial jurisdiction.
(3) After investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly u/s 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
9. This would be clear from the following discussion. Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Police Officer to investigate any cognizable offence. It reads as under:
156. Police Officer''s power to investigate cognizable case:
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case'' shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered u/s 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
10. It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under Sub-section (1) to the extent that the Officer can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have power to inquire into or try under me provisions of Chapter XIII. However, Sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170. Section 170 specifically provides that if, upon an investigation, it appears to the Officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then F.I.R. can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/Or investigate it.
11. Chapter XIII of the Code provides for "Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials". It is to be stated that under the said Chapter there are various provisions which empower the Court for inquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, inquired or tried. This would be clear by referring to Sections 177 to 188. For our purpose, it would be suffice to refer only to Sections 177 and 178 which are as under:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
178. Place of inquiry or trial. - (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar (Supra) reiterating the law laid down by it in Satvinder Kaur''s case held that the powers vested in the Investigating Authorities, u/s 156 (1) Cr.P.C. did not restrict the jurisdiction of the investigating agency to investigate into the complaint even if it did not have territorial jurisdiction to do so. Unlike as any other case, it was for the Court to decide whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as and when the entire facts were placed before it.
8. In Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner the Hon''ble Supreme Court was dealing with the question of legality of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court whereby the Appellant''s prayer for quashing of the proceedings in a complaint was rejected by the High Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In the said case the Appellants before the Hon''ble Supreme Court had filed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court after investigation was complete and the charge sheet was filed by the police alleging that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even if the allegations contained therein are accepted in toto. Thus, in line with all these decisions the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that since no part of cause of action arose at Chennai therefore the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and quashed the proceedings directing the complaint to the returned to be filed in the appropriate Court in accordance with law.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Bimla Rawal (Supra) wherein this Court had transferred the investigation to other state. This Court is bound by the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court wherein it has been categorically held that there can be no interference at this stage and the issue of jurisdiction has to be decided by the Court at the time of cognizance of the offence on filing of the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further relied upon Neelu Chopra and Raj Kumar Khanna (supra). In Neelu Chopra the Hon''ble Supreme Court was dealing with the relations of the husband of the Complainant and on a perusal of the complaint found that there was no allegation against the Appellants therein regarding entrustment or harassment on account of demand of dowry and thus, the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance was quashed. Even in Raj Kumar Khanna (supra) a perusal of the complaint did not disclose the commission of cognizable offence against the Petitioner therein and thus the High Court quashed the order summoning the Petitioner. This court examined the allegations against the Petitioner therein and came to the conclusion that there was no allegation of either entrustment of any article or any demand made by him and thus quashed the FIR and proceedigns qua the Petitioner therein.
10. In the present case, as observed above as per the allegations set Out in the FIR, part of cause of action has taken place at Delhi, the consequences thereof have also ensued at Delhi and further in terms of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. the Streedhan has been entrusted and accounted for at Delhi no case for quashing of the FIR or transfer to Bangalore at this stage is made out.
11. During the pendency of the present petition the Petitioner had filed certain CDs and transcripts alleging malafide investigation. He stated that he had filed a complaint against the police officers for the alleged offences committed by them at Bangalore. At the time of hearing the Petitioner did not press the said ground.
The Petition and the application are dismissed.
