The material collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of the said offences against the petitioner. The court also observed that the offences subject matter of the trial constituted the same transaction due to continuity of action and community of purpose or design, and therefore, the trial arising out of the FIR was not hit by want of territorial jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner filed petition bearing no. Crl. M.C. 5130/2019 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing of FIR bearing no 0007/2016 registered at PS North Avenue under sections 498A/406/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and the revision petition bearing no. Crl. Rev. P. 406/2023 under sections 397 and 401 of the Code read with section 482 of Code against order on charge dated 10.03.2023 passed by the court of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Patiala House Courts, Delhi.

2. FIR bearing no. 0007/2016 dated 16.01.2016 was got registered under sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC at P.S. North Avenue, Delhi based on the complaint made by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 primarily alleged that she got married with Sujeet Kumar Jha s/o Jugal Kishore Jha, who was employed in Air Force, on 10.06.2011 at Village Maniyari, Dist. Sitamarhi, Bihar as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry including cash and jewellery was given. The respondent no 2 was tortured for dowry demands. The petitioner is the brother-in-law (husband of the sister of Sujeet Kumar) of the respondent no 2 and Sujeet Kumar. Sujeet Kumar allegedly compelled the respondent no 2 to establish physical relation with the petitioner and was beaten by Sujeet Kumar on refusal. Jugal Kishore Jha, father in law of the respondent no 2 also tried to establish relations with her forcibly. The respondent no. 2 was left at the native village on the pretext of celebration of Chhath Puja and thereafter, the respondent no 2 was left at the house of the petitioner where his wife was not staying. The respondent no 2 also informed her father about mental and physical torture being faced by her. The respondent no. 2 was brought back to Delhi and the petitioner also came to Delhi after 3-4 days. The petitioner continued to harass the respondent no 2. Sujeet Kumar demanded Rs. 10 lakhs on 17.02.2015 for the construction of new house at Muzaffarpur. Sujeet Kumar on 23.02.2015 at about 4 pm had left to join his duty but did not report for the duty and accordingly missing report was lodged at PS Kalkaji. The petitioner also came after about 15 days and asked the respondent no 2 to do the acts as dictated by the petitioner. The respondent no 2 lodged a complaint at DCP Office, Sarita Vihar and PS Kalkaji and went to her parental house. The petitioner had gone back to Sitamarhi but extended threat to the father of the respondent no 2 through two boys. Accordingly, present FIR bearing no 0007/2016 under sections 498A/406/34 and 354 IPC was got registered at PS North Avenue and investigation was handed over to SI Ram Kumar.

2.1. The statements of the respondent no 2 and her father Sh. Arvind Kumar Jha were recorded under section 161 of the Code during the investigation. The respondent no 2 in supplementary statement recorded under section 161 of the Code on 08.08.2016 stated that the respondent no 2 has committed rape with her several times against her consent when the respondent no 2 was left at house of the petitioner situated at Sitamarhi by her husband Sujeet Kumar. The respondent no 2 did not disclose this fact to anyone due to fear but disclosed it to her mother. The statement of the respondent no 2 was also recorded under section 164 of the Code vide proceedings dated 11.05.2016 conducted by Sh. Aashish Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi wherein the respondent no 2 made allegations of harassment, molestation and rape at Sitamarhi and attempt to rape at Delhi against the petitioner. Thereafter, offence punishable under section 376 IPC was also added against the petitioner on the basis of statement of the respondent no 2 under section 164 of the Code. The investigation was handed over to WSI Neelam Sharma. The respondent no. 2 during investigation had refused to undergo g