Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1119 (RAJ)

Abhay Bharunt v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-22

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.5/2015 lodged at Police Station Women, Bikaner against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 307, 323, 382, 504 and 506 IPC. 2. While assailing the impugned FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his challenge up to the jurisdiction of the police of District Bikaner to investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR. Hence, the only issue for consideration in this criminal misc. petition is whether the Women Police Station, Bikaner can investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR. 3. The respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR alleging ill treatment by the petitioners after her marriage with the petitioner No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Women Police Station, Bikaner to carry out the investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR while contending that from wholesome reading of the FIR, it is clear that none of the alleged incidents had taken place at Bikaner, therefore, the Police Station at Bikaner has no jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR as per section 177 CrPC. In support of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 103 , Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2014) 12 SCC 362 as well as decisions of this Court in Mahaveer Mehta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 506, Manish Saxena & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1636 and in Manish Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1837/2014) decided on 23.04.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on decision of Bombay High Court in Ravindra Pyarelal Baidlan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 CRI.L.J.3019. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have argued that in the impugned FIR, the complainant has specifically alleged that on 03.02.2014, the petitioner No.1 had visited Bikaner and where he quarrelled with her while demanding Rs. v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 CRI.L.J.3019. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have argued that in the impugned FIR, the complainant has specifically alleged that on 03.02.2014, the petitioner No.1 had visited Bikaner and where he quarrelled with her while demanding Rs. 10 lacs and one car as dowry and it is also specifically alleged that the complainant has demanded her Stridhan from petitioner No.1 through email from Bikaner and he had replied to that mail, which was received by the complainant at Bikaner, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed at Bikaner and the Women Police Station, Bikaner has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation into the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned FIR. 7. In the impugned FIR, the complainant has narrated several incidents of cruelty and demand of dowry, alleged to have taken place at Kolkata. However, it is also specifically alleged in the FIR that from 03.02.2014, the petitioner No.1 was in Bikaner for some days and during his stay there, he quarreled with the complainant and also demanded Rs. 10 lacs and one car as dowry. The relevant portion i.e. para No.11 of the impugned FIR is reproduced hereunder: ^^11- ;g fd fnukad 3-2-2014 dks vHk; izkfFkZuh dks ihgj xaxk'kgj esa izkfFkZuh dks ysus vk;k gqvk Fkk izkfFkZuh ml le; ihgj vkbZ gqbZ FkhA izkfFkZuh ds ufugky esa vHk; ds vkus ij muds lEeku esa izkfFkZuh ds ekek us vius ?kj cqyok;k Fkk izkfFkZuh ds ufugky xaxk'kgj chdkusj esa vfHk;qDr vHk; us uk'rs ds le; izkfFkZuh ls >kxM+k fd;k vkSj dgk fd ,sls uk'rs rks eSaus cgqr fd;s gSa iwtk ds firk us vHkh rd gekjh ekax ds vuq:i dkj o 10 yk£ :i;s ugha fn;s gSa rks tYnh fnyok;s vkSj xqLls ls uk'rk Hkh ugha fd;k vkSj mlh fnu izkfFkZuh ds ihgj xaxk'kgj vkus ij Hkh izkfFkZuh ls >xM+k fd;kA** 8. From the above quoted paragraph, it is clear that as per the complainant, the incident of cruelty and demand of dowry had taken place at Bikaner. 9. From the above quoted paragraph, it is clear that as per the complainant, the incident of cruelty and demand of dowry had taken place at Bikaner. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has also produced a copy of the case diary, wherein the police has recorded the statements under section 161 CrPC of several witnesses, who happened to be the neighbours of the complainant and those witnesses also stated that in February, 2014, the petitioner No.1 stayed in the house of the complainant and they saw him quarreling with the complainant and assaulting her. However, though there is no specific averment in the FIR regarding the commission of offence of breach of trust at Bikaner or there is no averment to the effect that the Stridhan of the complainant was handed over to the petitioner at Bikaner or was promised to be returned at Bikaner but when there is specific allegation regarding cruelty, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed only on the ground that there is no allegation regarding commission of offence of breach of trust at Bikaner. 10. This Court is of the opinion that when one of the cognisable offences has been committed at Bikaner, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that other offences alleged in the FIR have not taken place at Bikaner. 11. So far as the decisions upon which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance are concerned, the same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case because in all those cases, the Court has found that as per the contents of the FIR, it was clear that none of the offences has taken place at the place where the FIR was registered. 12. As stated earlier, in the present case, there is specific allegation regarding commission of offence of cruelty and demand of dowry at Bikaner by the complainant, therefore, the impugned FIR is very much maintainable at Bikaner and the Women Police Station, Bikaner has all the jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR. 13. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.