The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of continuing offences under Section 406 IPC and the duty of the court to examine and condone delay in filing complaints in the interest of justice.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

Crl.M.A. No. 757/2019 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(CRL) 111/2019 and Crl.M.A. No. 756/2019

1. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 179/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC investigated at PS Nanak Pura CAW Cell.

2. The grounds urged by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question are firstly that there is violation of the standing order No. 281 which provides that the list of dowry articles given at the time of marriage be obtained and bills/cash memos in support of the said articles be procured and placed on file.

3. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the complaint was filed at CAW Cell East Delhi it was transferred for investigation on 22nd December, 2015 to PS Nanak Pura without assigning any reason.

4. The third ground urged is that the cognizance is barred by the limitation and it has been taken beyond the period of three years.

5. The fourth ground urged is that the Court at Dwarka trying the offence has no territorial jurisdiction and hence the FIR in question and proceedings pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were married on 7th March, 2014 and lived as husband and wife initially at Vasant Kunj and later shifted to Preet Vihar, Delhi till 22nd August, 2015. Since the parties could not get along together a complaint was filed by respondent No. 3 with the CAW Cell at Patparganj, on 22nd September, 2015. On the said complaint an FIR was registered on 5th October, 2016 at PS Nanak Pura as the complaint had been transferred to PS Nanak Pura on 22nd December, 2015. After the investigation was carried out charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at the Dwarka Court before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over PS Nanak Pura.

7. The allegations of respondent No. 3 in case FIR No. 179/2016 registered on 5th October, 2016 based on the complaint of respondent No. 3 to the CAW Cell Patparganj are of entrustment of jewellery to the mother-in-law immediately at the time of vidai and after the wedding instead of the complainant being taken to the husband’s home at Munirka she was taken to Ghaziabad at the house of the mausi of the husband. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1, i.e. mother-in-law used to taunt the complainant for light weight jewellery articles and abuse her parents with abusive words. After the ceremonies were finished at Ghaziabad House the jewellery given to the complainant, to be worn was taken aback by mother-in-law and it is the case of the respondent No. 3 that the said jewellery is in the custody of the petitioners till date. It is alleged that the complainant was harassed every single day by not giving food to eat, leaving her alone in single room and being taunted and tortured for not getting good dowry. The complainant parents were forced to give a ground floor portion or terrace portion in the mother’s house and items like AC, TV, furniture etc. were demanded.

8. It is alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner No. 2 at Shimla was also not proper and after Shimla she was taken to her husband’s permanent house at Aligarh where again she was tortured in the similar manner. It is further alleged that in the month of June the husband shifted their leased house from Munirka to Preet Vihar without her knowledge while she was staying at her mother’s house in Laxmi Nagar.

9. Later from the lady residing on the ground floor it was revealed that her husband and in-laws had gone to Aligarh and she did not know when they would return. The whereabouts of the complainant’s husband were not even known in his office. Later she got information that they had gone to Aligarh to celebrate Rakhi and would return on 30th August but they did not return nor informed about their returning. None answered the calls and the house was locked and all he