Back
2014 Supreme(J&K) 146
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Janak Raj Kotwal, J.
Rakesh Dhar & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. -Resopndent
Petition under Section 561-A Cr. PC No. 02-2012
Decided On : 20-03-2014
R.A. Jan, Nazima, R.A. Khan, A. Chesti.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an offence under section 498-A RPC may be a continuing offence and can extend to more than one courts within whose territorial jurisdiction some of the acts of cruelty are committed.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Offence under section 498-A RPC - Section 156, 177, 182 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the jurisdiction of a Police Station to investigate a case and the exceptions to the general rule. It highlighted that an offence under section 498-A RPC may be a continuing offence and can extend to more than one courts within whose territorial jurisdiction some of the acts of cruelty are committed.
Fact of the Case:
The informant alleged physical and mental torture by her husband and in-laws, and the quashing of FIR No. 47 of 2011 under sections 498-A and 406 RPC was sought by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the harassment of the informant took place at Srinagar and Delhi, and the jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence allegedly committed vested in both a court at Srinagar and a court at Delhi. The court also found that the offence under section 406 RPC was not made out in the information lodged by the informant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Police Station to investigate the case, the continuing nature of the offence under section 498-A RPC, and the commission of the offence under section 406 RPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an offence under section 498-A RPC may be a continuing offence and can extend to more than one courts within whose territorial jurisdiction some of the acts of cruelty are committed. It also ruled that the offence under section 406 RPC was not made out in the information lodged by the informant.
Final Decision: The petition partly succeeded, and FIR No. 47/2011 of Police Station, Rambagh and investigation pursuant thereto were quashed to the extent of petitioners 2 to 5 as well as to the extent of commission of offence under section 406 RPC. The investigation against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under section 498-A RPC was ordered to continue.
2. Heard. I have perused the record.
3. Informant, Vandana Koul, is wife of petitioner No. 1, Rakesh Dhar. On 07.12.2011, informant lodged a written information at Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar, alleging that after her marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 24.05.2010, they came to Srinagar on 27.05.2010 for honeymoon and stayed in Hemal Hotel, at the Dal Lake. Petitioner No. 1 started physically torturing her on one pretext or the other. He kept on telling her why her parents have not given the money asked for by him for purchasing flat in Greater Noida. He used to beat her for no reason and used abusive language. After about three days, they flew back to Delhi. She alleged further that at Delhi, parents of the petitioner No. 1, who were already there, left no stone unturned to torture her physically and mentally. "This also includes her two sisters-in-law". She did not disclose the factum of torture being meted to her to her parents and tried her best to keep her in-laws happy. She also alleged that all the gold ornaments, which were received by her at the time of her marriage from both sides, were taken from her by her in-laws at Jammu before they had left for honeymoon and are lying with them. Having decided not to take the torture meted to her anymore, she on 09.03.2011 called her parents, who brought her back from Delhi on 15.03.2011 and since then she is living with her parents at Srinagar. Lastly, she stated that all attempts of her parents to get the matter amicably settled have gone in vain and, therefore, requested the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Police Station to take necessary steps in the matter against her husband, his parents, Pushkar Nath Dhar and Jaya Dhar and two sisters, Meenakshi Saproo and Reema Nagri.
4. On the information lodged by the informant, FIR No. 47, under sections 498-A and 406 RPC came to be registered on 07.12.2011 and investigation taken up.
5. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the informant and some of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Petitioners (accused), however, filed this petition before this Court seeking quashment of the FIR and the proceedings taken by the police.
6. Quashment is sought mainly on two grounds: firstly, that registration of case and investigation by Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar is without jurisdiction as neither any offence nor any part of the offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of the said Police Station or any Police Station at Srinagar and secondly, that the information lodged by the informant did not disclose all the ingredients of offence either under section 498-A RPC or 406 RPC. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would say that registration of FIR by the police at Police Station, Rambagh and investigation of the case is in violation of section 156 Cr.P.C. as the offence alleged by the informant was not committed within the jurisdiction of said Police Station as provided under section 156 Cr.P.C. Mr. Jan further submitted that as per own saying of the petitioner No. 1, the occurrence in its entirety has taken place at Delhi and no offence can be said to have been committed within the jurisdiction of any Police Station at Srinagar. Mr. Jan, thus, submitted that registration of the FIR and investigation by the police having no jurisdiction over the alleged offence is illegal and liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. In support, Mr. Jan relied upon Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004)8 SCC 100 and Bhura Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR 2008 SCC 2666. Mr. Jan submitted further that the inf
