Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 287
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Kumaran, J.
Amarpreet Kaur
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 15872 of 1996,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 7, 1997
A Court can quash an FIR even after the filing of a chargesheet and framing of charges if the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - JURISDICTION - COURT CAN QUASH FIR EVEN AFTER FILING OF CHARGE-SHEET AND FRAMING OF CHARGES IF COURT LACKS JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged an FIR registered against them under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, alleging that the Court at Tohana lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. The marriage took place at Chandigarh, the couple lived in Chandigarh, and the alleged cruelty and misappropriation occurred in Chandigarh. The petitioners argued that the dowry articles were to be returned at the marital home in Chandigarh and not at Tohana.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the complaint did not allege that the dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners at Tohana or that the demand for their return was made at Tohana. The Court also found that there was no allegation that the alleged cruelty occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court at Tohana.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court at Tohana had jurisdiction to entertain the case and proceed with the same. 2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings could be quashed even after the filing of the chargesheet and framing of charges by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reading of the complaint did not show that the petitioners committed the alleged offences within the jurisdiction of the Court at Tohana. Therefore, the Court at Tohana had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the FIR. 2. The Court held that in cases where the Court lacks jurisdiction, the FIR and consequential proceedings can be quashed even after the filing of the chargesheet and framing of charges by the Court.
Final Decision: The Court allowed both petitions and quashed the FIR impugned in these petitions and pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana.
K.S.Kumaran, J.
1. The issues involved in both these cases (Cr. M. No. 15872-M/96 and Cr. M. No. 18620-M/96) are same and, therefore, both the applications are disposed of by this common order.
2. Harpreet Kaur, the second-respondent in both these applications is the wife of Amardeep Singh, the first petitioner in Cr. M. No. 18620-M/96. The other two petitioners in that application are Rajinder Singh and Hamir Kaur (father and mother respectively of Amardeep Singh). Amarpreet Kaur, the petitioner in Cr. M. No. 15872-M/96 is the sister of the above said Amardeep Singh.
3. The marriage between Amardeep Singh and second respondent-Harpreet Kaur took place on 9.12.1992 at Chandigarh. Amardeep Singh is a resident of Chandigarh and is working there. His father and mother are admittedly residing in the State of Uttar Pardesh. Their daughter Amarpreet Kaur, according to them is also residing with them at Uttar Pradesh, whereas the second respondent-Harpreet Kaur claims that Amarpreet Kaur had been residing at Chandigarh alongwith them so long as she (Harpreet Kaur) and her husband Amardeep Singh were residing at Chandigarh.
4. Harpreet Kaur lodged a complaint before the Police Station, Tohana on the basis of Which FIR No. 91 dated 5.4.1996 under sections 498-A and 406 IPC came to be registered. It is to quash this FIR that the petitioners have filed these petitions.
5. In the FIR, the second respondent Harpreet Kaur has alleged that she is a resident of Chander Kalan within the limits of Police Station Tohana and that her marriage with Amardeep Singh took place on 9.12.1992. As per allegations in the FIR, specific items of gold ornaments, cash and other articles were given to the petitioners. The allegations also show that she was living with her husband Amardeep Singh at Chandigarh, and that her sister-in-law Amarpreet Kaur (petitioner in Cr. M. No. 15872-M/96) was also living with them, whereas the parents of her husband (who are residents of Uttar Pradesh) used to visit them. As per allegations in the FIR, whenever they came they used to abuse her and instigate her husband against her by saying that she had brought less dowry. Amarpreet Kaur is also stated to have instigated Amardeep Singh against the second respondent and also to have abused her. The second respondent has also alleged that all the them used to beat her and wanted to kill her. The complainant Harpreet Kaur has also alleged that her Stri Dhana articles namely, furnitures are with her father-in-law and mother-in-law, which they have kept in their house at Uttar Pradesh, whereas the ornaments are with Harpreet Kaur, while the cash is with the husband Amardeep Singh. According to the complainant, she was turned out from the house, and on the asking of her father, they refused to return the dowry articles.
6. The petitioners claim that the marriage took place at Chandigarh and the gifts were allegedly given to the accused at Chandigarh, that the second respondent, complainant and her husband lastly lived at Chandigarh, that the misappropriation and cruelty were allegedly committed at Chandigarh, that the alleged dowry articles were also retained and required to be returned at Chandigarh, since there was no stipulation to return the said articles at any other place than the marital home which was at Chandigarh and, therefore, the Court at Tohana has no jurisdiction at all.
7. The petitioners also claim that there are no specific allegations of cruelty except the vague statement that the petitioners used to harass the second respondent and instigate her husband against her, and that she was beaten. They also claim that the articles allegedly given will be normally with the husband and wife and not with the other petitioners who were residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioners claim that no case is made out against these petitioners either under Section 498-A or Section 406 IPC.
8. The SI/SHO of Police Station Sadar, Tohana has filed reply to
