Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 511 (PNJ)

Shailesh Kumar Verma v. State Of Haryana

2002-05-07

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2002
Judgment Adarsh Kumar, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of proceedings in F.I.R. No. 204 dated 23.2.1998, registered in Police Station Central, Faridabad, under sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that after filing of this petition, the investigating agency has filed challan and has deleted section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and now the case is pending under section 498-A of the Code. Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that dowry articles have not been returned while counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is ready to return the dowry articles. Let the dowry articles, as per the list of the petitioner himself, be returned at 11 A.M. on 30.5.2002 in the presence of a senior citizen of the locality, to be selected by the petitioner. I am, however, not inclined to quash proceedings under section 498-A of the Code at this stage even though the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Faridabad court will have no jurisdiction as cruelty, if any, was at Delhi. Counsel for the parties have cited judgments taking different views, which will be considered by the trial court in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Jagan Nath Suri v. Babita, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 70 (P&H) : 1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 477; Mohan Lal and others v. State, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 534 and Rajinder Singh v. State, 1998(47) Delhi Reported Judgments 590. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied on Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1991(2) Recent Criminal Reports 271 and Jiwni and others v. State of Haryana, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 710. 2. After perusing the record of the case and hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that question of jurisdiction will depend on the set of the facts given in a particular case. There is no dispute with the proposition that jurisdiction will be at the place where the offence is committed, and for deciding where the offence is committed, various aspects will have to be taken into consideration. I, therefore, leave this question open to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. 3. There is no dispute with the proposition that jurisdiction will be at the place where the offence is committed, and for deciding where the offence is committed, various aspects will have to be taken into consideration. I, therefore, leave this question open to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments in a petition for annulment of marriage wherein a finding was recorded that the wife concealed material facts at the time of the marriage and on that ground, husbands petition for annulment was accepted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without expressing any final view of merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be granted exemption from personal appearance in the trial Court since the petitioner is stationed at Delhi and the proceedings are pending at Faridabad. Order accordingly. The personal appearance of the petitioner will not be required unless it is specifically required at a particular stage. The trial Court will decide the case within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. Order accordingly.