Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1042 (MP)

Heena Rohra v. State of M. P.

2020-10-07

VISHAL MISHRA

body2020
ORDER 1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. The respondents despite service have not tendered their appearance. 4. The Miscellaneous Criminal petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed for converting the 0' FIR into registered FIR at same Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior at the petitioner's place of residence i.e. parental house at Gwalior. It is argued that the petitioner got solemnized her marriage with Varun Nagwani against the wishes of her family on 16.7.2019 at Pune, Maharashtra. After the marriage, she realizes that her husband Varun Nagwani is a money minded person. For a period of one year, she remained with him at Pune, Maharashtra. During the aforesaid period, she was harassed and tortured and she was a working woman. The amount of salary was also being forcefully taken by her husband. Somehow the husband has also tried to make attempt for unnatural sex with the petitioner. During the lock down period, she somehow has managed to run away from Pune and hired a Taxi and came to Indore and thereafter to Gwalior and thereafter she filed a complaint against the petitioner. It is submitted that even after coming to Gwalior, the petitioner's husband was regularly giving threatening to the petitioner to come to Pune immediately or he will drag her in false cases. Thereafter, a complaint at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior was filed to the respondents No.1 and 2 against her husband Varun Nagwani and her mother-in-law Smt. Sharda Nagwani for harassment and demand of dowry and for illegally holding the ornaments of the petitioner and for cheating with the petitioner. The police authorities have registered the FIR at 0' number at Gwalior and thereafter transferred the case to Wakad Police Station Pune, Maharashtra for further investigation which is contrary to the settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar & Another, reported in (2011)11 SCC 301 . The police authorities have registered the FIR at 0' number at Gwalior and thereafter transferred the case to Wakad Police Station Pune, Maharashtra for further investigation which is contrary to the settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar & Another, reported in (2011)11 SCC 301 . It is submitted that the offence of 498 A IPC is a continuous offence and recurring the part of cause of action arises at wife's place i.e. parental house, therefore, the case can be registered at wife's place also and the investigation is to be carried out by the police authorities at Gwalior itself. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Gwalior where she is residing at parental house. The husband has also given threatening at Gwalior and the cheques which have been given to the petitioner in lieu of payments made by her to the husband were also dishonored at Gwalior, therefore, the part of cause of action survives at Gwalior also. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 was wrong directing in transferring the case to Pune, Maharashtra. The FIR should have been registered at Gwalior as the part of offence was committed at Gwalior. The statements under sections 161 and 164 of CrPC were also recorded before the Magistrate at Gwalior and thereafter, the case has been transferred to Wakad Police Station Pune, Maharashtra which is impermissible. He has further relied upon the recent judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others in Criminal Appeal No.71/2012 vide judgment dated 9.4.2019 and has argued that in the identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the continuation of proceedings under section 498A IPC amounts to recurring the cause of action and the complaint can be filed to entertain by the Courts at the parental house of wife. In such circumstances, the directions should be given to the police authorities to register an FIR at Gwalior and to investigate the matter. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 6. From the records, it is seen that the marriage has taken place on 16.7.2019 at Pune, Maharashtra. In such circumstances, the directions should be given to the police authorities to register an FIR at Gwalior and to investigate the matter. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 6. From the records, it is seen that the marriage has taken place on 16.7.2019 at Pune, Maharashtra. From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that all the incidences have taken place at Pune, Maharashtra where the wife was residing with her husband at her matrimonial house. During the lock down period, when the harassment and cruelty was beyond the control of wife, she left her matrimonial house and hired the taxi and came to Indore and thereafter to Gwalior and thereafter she has filed the complaint at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior which was registered at 0' crime number and the matter was taken up into investigation. It is only mentioned in the FIR that threatening was given by the husband to the petitioner and she was asked to come back to Pune immediately or she will be dragged in false cases but nowhere in the complaint it is mentioned that by which number and when the threatening was given to the petitioner. There is no incidence reported in the complaint which could demonstrate the fact that the husband came to Gwalior and harassed her and has committed offence and the demand has been raised. In the cases of Sunita Kumari Kashyap (supra), as well as Rupali Devi (supra), which have been relied upon by the the petitioner wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect that if the part of cause of action of offence has taken place at parental house then the Courts are having jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and carried out the trial and to continue with the trial. The present case is a case where the FIR is being registered and matter is at investigation stage. All the incidences which have been narrated by the petitioner in the complaint have taken place at Pune, Maharashtra. The police authorities have rightly registered an F.I.R. at 0' crime number at Gwalior and thereafter, the matter has been transferred to Police Station Wakad, Pune, Maharashtra for further investigation into the matter as all the incidences narrated have taken place at Pune, Maharashtra. The Courts have no rights to monitor the investigation of the police authorities. The police authorities have rightly registered an F.I.R. at 0' crime number at Gwalior and thereafter, the matter has been transferred to Police Station Wakad, Pune, Maharashtra for further investigation into the matter as all the incidences narrated have taken place at Pune, Maharashtra. The Courts have no rights to monitor the investigation of the police authorities. Once the investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed before the Courts, thereafter the application can be filed by the wife for getting transferred the complete trial to her place of residence and that to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In Rupali's case also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “the Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or dragging away from the matrimonial house on account of act of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, depend on the factual situation, also have a jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offence under section 498A of IPC.” From the perusal of the aforesaid verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparently clear that the Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or dragging away from the matrimonial house are having jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. Nothing is being said with respect to the investigation being carried out by the police authorities, in such circumstances, there is no illegality done by the police authorities in registering the FIR as 0' and transferring the case to Police Station Wakad, Pune, Maharashtra for further investigation. In such circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file proper proceedings for transfer of his case after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet before the competent Court to the place of actual residence which will be dealt with in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. The present petition filed under section 482 of CrPC sans merits and is hereby rejected. 9. E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order. Anmol Khedkar for applicant; R.K. Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.