Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Court held harassment alleged in FIR para 5 occurred in Gurgaon, validating court jurisdiction, and dismissed petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 20838 of 2012
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 20838 of 2012 Date of decision. 16.01.2013
Naresh Kumar
....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and anr.
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Veneet Sehgal,Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate for respondent no.2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Naresh Kumar, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 858 dated 18.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station City Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with section 34 IPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 20838 of 2012
----2--
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
Jyoti Rai was married with the petitioner on 16.10.2010 at Gurgaon City. According to him, thereafter she resided with the petitioner at Ludhiana City. According to him, no offence under section 406 IPC has been complained in this case and as the offence under sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC has been committed at Ludhiana City, the FIR at Gurgaon is incompetent. According to him, the court at Gurgaon have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, which is committed at Ludhiana City.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant drew attention of the court to para no.5 of the FIR, which is to the following effect:-
“That on date 07.03.2010 my father spoke to the accused no. 1 and 2 and after counseling my husband Naresh Kumar and brother-in-law Balu came to Gurgaon to pick me but here also they threatened that if they care for the welfare of the girl they should give a Honda City car otherwise the girl will never have any comfort and peace.”
According to learned State counsel, this allegation clearly relates to the offence for which the case has been registered and the act as stated above in the said paragraph has been committed in Gurgaon city. According to him, in these circumstances the court at Gurgaon has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 20838 of 2012
----3--
It is true that offence under section 406 IPC has not been
reported in this case. Learned counsel for the complainantrespondent no.2 does not say that any allegation in this regard was there and that the police did not register the case under the provisions of section 406 IPC. Had it been a case under section 406 IPC, it could be said that the entrustment of dowry articles had been there at Gurgaon city, which were subsequently misappropriated. If it is a fact that the harassment of Jyoti Rai had been there at Ludhiana , the court at Gurgaon would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and therefore, the FIR at Gurgaon could not be registered. However, the contents of para no.5 of the FIR as reproduced above clearly show that on 07.03.2010 the complainant was harassed at Gurgaon not only by demanding Honda City Car but also by threats of not allowing her comfort and peace , if the demand was not met. It cannot be said at this stage that the allegations contained in the FIR are false in any manner.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is consequently dismissed.
January 16, 2013 dinesh
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court has jurisdiction to quash FIR registered at Gurgaon for offences allegedly committed at Ludhiana.
Whether act of harassment occurred at Gurgaon justifies jurisdiction of Gurgaon court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naresh Kumar
The State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
