2013 Supreme(Raj) 1389
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.S.Chauhan, J.
Vikas Sawlani - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 161 of 2013.
Decided On : 31-05-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. J.R. Bijarnia, PP.
For the Respondent No. 2.:Mr. Ajay Choudhary, Advocate.
The territorial jurisdiction for investigating and trying an offence under Section 498A IPC lies not only where the offence was committed, but also where the consequences of the offence occurred, as per Section 179 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF FIR - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - OFFENCE OF CRUELTY - SECTION 498A IPC - CONSEQUENCES OF OFFENCE - SECTION 179 CR.P.C. - COMPROMISE BETWEEN PARTIES - EFFECT - RE-INVESTIGATION OF CASE - SECTION 156(3) CR.P.C. - POWER OF MAGISTRATE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, alleging lack of territorial jurisdiction and compromise between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that the territorial jurisdiction for investigating and trying the case lies with the police station and courts at Khairthal, where the consequences of the offence occurred, as per Section 179 Cr.P.C. 2. The court distinguished the case from precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that the compromise between the parties did not bar the complainant wife from filing a protest petition and continuing the criminal proceedings. 3. The court modified the Magistrate's order directing re-investigation of the case, clarifying that the police should conduct further investigation and submit a report within one month.
Issues: 1. Whether the police station and courts at Khairthal have territorial jurisdiction to investigate and try the case. 2. Whether the compromise between the parties bars the complainant wife from filing a protest petition and continuing the criminal proceedings. 3. Whether the Magistrate has the power to direct re-investigation of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 179 Cr.P.C. grants jurisdiction to a court not only where the offence has occurred, but also where the consequences follow. 2. The court relied on precedents holding that the principles governing the territorial jurisdiction of the court also cover the territorial jurisdiction of the police to investigate the case. 3. The court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioner, noting that they did not deal with Section 179 Cr.P.C. and the specific facts of the present case. 4. The court clarified that the Magistrate cannot direct re-investigation of the case, but can direct further investigation.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the stay application was also disposed of. The court directed the police to complete further investigation within one month and submit a report before the concerned Magistrate.
JUDGMENT :
1. - Aggrieved by lodging of FIR against him, namely FIR No.183/2012, registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Sawlani, has approached this court for quashing of the same.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-wife, Mrs. Manisha Devi, and Mr. Vikas Sawlani were married on 28.3.2009 at Jaipur. After marriage, both the parties started living together in Mumbai. However, within four months of the marriage, disputes erupted between the parties. In December, 2009, Manisha returned from Mumbai and went back to her paternal place at Khairthal, District Alwar. Subsequently, she filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and his family members before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint, on 17.6.2010 the Police Station Khairthal registered a formal FIR for offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC.
3. However, after sometime both the parties compromised their differences. On 12.10.2010 they entered into a compromise. Thereafter, Mrs. Manisha Devi submitted an application before the SHO, Police Station Khairthal. Therefore, on the basis of the said compromise, the police submitted a negative Final Report before the learned Magistrate. But despite the compromise entered between the parties and even after Manisha shifted back to Mumbai, the dispute again erupted between the couple. Therefore, Manisha Devi filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. By order dated 6.9.2011, the learned Magistrate directed the police to re-investigate the case and to submit its report. Thus, the FIR continues to exist; the investigation continues to be made. Hence, this petition for quashing of the FIR.
4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, according to Mrs. Manisha Devi, all the acts of cruelty were committed at Mumbai. Therefore, neither the Police Station Khairthal, nor the courts at Kishangarhbas have the territorial jurisdiction to investigate and to try the case respectively. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the cases of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. 2004 (2) WLC (SC) Criminal 597 : 2004 (2) WLC , Manish Ratan & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr. 2007 (1) WLC(SC) Criminal 132, Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 786 , Roop Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2008(3) RCC 1073 and Rasik Lal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 1.
5. Secondly, once the parties had reached a compromise, the complainant is pre-empted from filing a protest petition and from continuing the criminal proceedings. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the cases of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 299 : 2005 (1) Criminal Cases 611 SC , and Mohd. Shamim and Ors. v. Smt Nahid Begam and Anr, 2005 (3) SCC 302.
6. Lastly, once the police had submitted a negative Final Report, the learned Magistrate could not have directed re-investigation of the case. Since he has used the word "Punah" which mens "re", therefore, the learned Magistrate has directed re-investigation of the case. Hence, he has overstepped his jurisdiction.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife, Mrs. Manisha Devi has raised following arguments before this court: firstly, a bare perusal of the FIR would clearly reveal that the complainant-wife has made specific allegation about the incidents which had taken place in Khairthal itself. In Para-4 of her complaint, she has clearly stated that on 19.10.2009 when her husband came to drop her of at her paternal place at Khairthal, he not only told her parents that they had given a m
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
