Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Rana S/O Sh. Rajbir ... vs State, Govt. Of Nct Delhi Through ... on 27 August, 2007
Author: V Gupta
Bench: V Gupta
JUDGMENT
V.B. Gupta, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR No. 165/07, P.S. Hauz Khas, New Delhi under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. The allegations, as stated in the present petition, in brief, are that the complainant(respondent No. 2 herein) lodged a complaint with P.S.Indira Nagar, Bangalore where she was residing with petitioner No. 1 (her husband) on 17th August, 2006. In this complaint it was stated by her that her husband, had gone to office on 14th August, 2006 and returned home stating that he would take her mother-in-law to Delhi and return. However, her husband, did not return and when respondent No. 2 contacted her husband over phone, he told her that he will be back within 3-4 days but did not return to Bangalore. Respondent No. 2, in her complaint, further stated that she could not stay alone in the house and hence she was leaving for Delhi, taking away her belongings without informing her husband on 18th August, 2006 Along with her father.
3. Now respondent No. 2 has lodged the present FIR, which tantamounts to improvement of the facts and ingredients under Section 498A/406/34 IPC are not applicable in this case and Delhi Police has no jurisdiction under the facts and circumstances of the case and present FIR is an abuse of the process of law and the present FIR is also hit by the proviso of Section 162 CrPC and further when she has no grievance against the petitioner No. 1 till 17th August, 2006, the FIR registered later on, should be quashed as the present FIR is after thought.
4. Notice given to State as well as to the respondent No. 2
5. Arguments have been advanced by both the parties.
6. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was neither any demand of dowry nor any dowry was given and all the articles have been returned by the petitioner and as such ingredients of Section 498A/406/34 IPC are not attracted in this case and the present FIR is an abuse of the process of law and respondent No. 2 has no complaint against the petitioner till 17th August, 2006 and in support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. , wherein the Apex Court held that -
The registration of the information as the second FIR in regard to the same incident and making a fresh investigation is not permissible under the scheme of the provisions of the CrPC, therefore, the investigation undertaken and the report thereof cannot but be invalid.
7. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that marriage in the present case was solemnised in Delhi and as per the allegations made in the FIR, case under Section 498A/406/34 IPC is made out since demand of dowry and harassment is there. As far as report dated 17th August, 2006, lodged by respondent No. 2 with Bangalore Police is concerned, it was merely an intimation, informing the Police that respondent No. 2 is leaving for Delhi. The question as to why the respondent No. 2 has left her matrimonial home, for that she has given all the reasons in the present FIR. The investigation is going on and allegations made in the present FIR are yet to be looked into and as such the present petition is not maintainable.
8. The report lodged by respondent No. 2 with the Bangalore Police on 17th August, 2006 has been relied by both the parties and the same is reproduced as under:
Extract of NON COGNIZABLE Register relation to N.C.No.120/06 dated 17.08.2006 of Indirangara Police Station, Bangalore City-Complaint given by Smt. Archana Rana No. 3544/A, 13-G, Main Indiranagara, bangalore, against her husband Mr. Manoj Kumar.
FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT
It is written in Kannada and the same matter is translated to English whichreads as under:
The facts of the complaint given by the complainant against her husband is to the effect that on 14-08-2006 her husband went to office and returned home stating that he would take her mother-in-law to Delhi, and return. But her husband did not return and when the complainant contracted her husband over phone, her husband told that he would be back within three or four days, but did not return to Bangalore. Further she has also stated, that she can't stay alone in the house and hence was leaving for Delhi taking way her belongings without informing her husband on 18-08-2006 along with her father etc. Police Inspector?
9. As per this report, the respondent No. 2 has simply given an intimation to the Police that on 14th August, 2006 her husband has gone to office and returned home stating that he would take her mother-in-law to Delhi and return. Since her husband did not return and when the complainant asked her husband over phone he told that he would be back within 3-4 days but he did not return to Bangalore. The complainant further stated that she could not stay alone in the house and hence she was leaving for Delhi taking her belongings without informing her husband on 18th August, 2006 along with father.
10. So, admittedly no complaint was made against her husband and she has left Bangalore informing the Police that, as her husband has not returned home she is leaving for Delhi with her father.
11. In the present FIR No. 165/07, P.S. Hauz Khas, New Delhi under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, she has made allegations against the petitioners for harassing her physically and mentally torturing her for not bringing more things in the dowry.
12. All the allegations made in the FIR are yet to be looked into by the Police and the matter is at investigation stage.
13. The scope of powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been discussed by the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr. 2004 III AD (Cr.) SC 301 in which it has been laid down that-
when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly.
14. Since the investigation is on and case is at initial stage, there is no ground for quashing the FIR and furthermore this is not the second FIR making the allegations under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioner and as such the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case and accordingly the present petition is dismissed.
