1999 Supreme(Raj) 1507
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Bhagwati Prasad, J.
Dr. Mani Thomas - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan And Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 869 of 1997.
Decided On : 03-12-1999
For the Petitioner:M.L. Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ramesh Purohit, PP.
For the Complainant:D.S. Shishodia, K.L. Thakur, Advocates.
A promise to return something presupposes entrustment, and therefore, an offence under Section 406 IPC can be made out even if there is no specific allegation of entrustment in the FIR.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - JURISDICTION - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 406 IPC - PROMISE TO RETURN STREEDHAN ARTICLES AT BIKANER - BIKANER COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY AND INVESTIGATE THE CASE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 494 and 406 IPC, arguing that the offences were time-barred and the FIR lacked material details. The petitioner also contended that the FIR could not be lodged at Bikaner as the alleged offences occurred in Kerala.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the question of limitation could not be considered at this stage and that the FIR contained sufficient details to disclose an offence under Section 406 IPC. The court also held that the Bikaner court had jurisdiction to try and investigate the case as the accused had promised to return the streedhan articles at Bikaner.
Issues: 1. Whether the offences under Sections 494 and 406 IPC were time-barred? 2. Whether the FIR lacked material details? 3. Whether the Bikaner court had jurisdiction to try and investigate the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of limitation could not be considered at this stage as sufficient material was not available to determine if the offences were time-barred. The court also noted that it had the discretion to condone the delay under Section 473 CrPC if it was satisfied that the delay was properly explained or that it was necessary to do so in the interest of justice. 2. The FIR contained sufficient details to disclose an offence under Section 406 IPC. The allegation that the accused had promised to return the streedhan articles at Bikaner constituted an ingredient of entrustment. 3. The Bikaner court had jurisdiction to try and investigate the case as the accused had promised to return the streedhan articles at Bikaner. This satisfied the requirement under Section 181(4) CrPC that an offence under Section 406 IPC could be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which was the subject to the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the FIR could not be quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. - In this misc. petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the first information report lodged against the petitioner cannot be sustained. The first information report was lodged at the Police Station, Kotwali, Bikaner being F.I.R. No. 64/97 on 19.6.1997. It was lodged by Dr. Sheela Oman alleging that the petitioner/accused married her in Kerala. Due to her employment in the Medical Department of the State of Rajasthan, she came to Bikaner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner remarried another lady and has committed an offence under Section 494 Indian Penal Code. It has also been alleged in the first information report that when the complainant demanded her Streedhan from the petitioner, he promised her that he would come to Bikaner and hand her over the articles of her Streedhan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the first information report and has prayed for quashing the first information report on the ground that the offences under Sections 494 and 406 Indian Penal Code as mentioned in the first information report cannot now be proceeded against the accused petitioner/accused because the trial of these offences is barred by time.
3. Another argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner against the first information report is that the first information report is laconic and lacks in material details for which the petitioner cannot be proceeded against.
4. Learned counsel also alleges that as regards the offence under Section 406 is concerned, there is no allegation in the first information report regarding entrustment. There is also no averment regarding refusal.
5. Learned counsel has also alleged that the first information report could not have been lodged at Bikaner because the alleged offences have taken place at Kerala and the Bikaner Police had no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
6. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have alleged that the question of the offences being time barred cannot be gone into in a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. The limitation prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code is not absolute and the Court has a discretion to condone the delay. If the first information report is quashed at this stage the court taking cognizance or applying its mind will be deprived of exercising its power to see as to whether it is a fit case where the court can exercise its jurisdiction to condone the delay or not. Therefore, the question of limitation cannot be gone into at this stage.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant and State have further urged that the first information report gives sufficient details about the commission of the crime. That being the position, the basic ingredients of the offences being mentioned in the first information report, it cannot be said that the first information report does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. The first information report is not required to contain every minute details in itself. The basic ingredients of the offence are contained in the first information report. The contents of the first information report are sufficient to initiate the investigation into the offence alleged. On this ground also the first information report cannot be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that entrustment is not proved and there is no refusal on the part of the petitioner for handing over the streedhan to the complainant. Therefore, the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code cannot be considered to be made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and the Complainant states that there is a fallacy in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner because the first information report records that the accused had promised to return the articles of her streedhan to the complainant. If the return of the streedhan articles at Bikaner is promised by the petitioner as alleged in the first information report then the offence under Se
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
