Delhi High Court
Anees Ahmad And Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Delhi And Ors on 11 August, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 11th August, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 425/2015
ANEES AHMAD AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. R.G. Srivastava,
Adv.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for
State with SI Manish Choudhary,
PS-Welcome Colony.
Mr. Mohd. Zahid and Mr. Hari Shankar,
Advs. for R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ CRL.M.C. 425/2015
1. Vide the present petition; petitioners seek directions thereby
quashing of FIR No. 645 dated 13.11.2014 registered at
PS-Welcome Colony, Delhi for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
that the alleged offence were committed upon the complainant at
Meerut and Ghaziabad City and merely because the complainant
left the matrimonial home and started living in Delhi will not confer
any jurisdiction upon the Delhi Police to lodge FIR against the
petitioners. Therefore, the FIR mentioned above may be quashed
against the petitioners.
3. It is submitted by ld. APP and counsel for the complainant
that on 26.05.2014, there was an assault upon the complainant by
the petitioners. To this effect, DD No. 18-A was registered at
PS-Welcome Colony. However, to this effect no case was ever
registered against the petitioners. Since the injuries caused by the
petitioner upon the complainant at Delhi, therefore, Delhi Police
has jurisdiction and accordingly registered the case.
4. I note that the aforesaid FIR is in detail and comprises of 3½
pages. However, nowhere in the said FIR any offence committed at
Delhi has been mentioned. Accordingly, finding no jurisdiction on
the complaint made by the complainant, Delhi Police transferred the
same to Ghaziabad. Thereafter, SSP, Ghaziabad transferred the
said complaint to Delhi for the reason that the complainant was
staying at Delhi. Accordingly, on 13.11.2014, the aforesaid FIR
was lodged at Delhi.
5. It is not disputed that in the FIR the complainant nowhere
stated about any offence committed by the petitioners at Delhi.
6. I note the present FIR is of 13.11.2014, whereas the alleged
MLC is of dated 26.05.2014. It is true that the complaint for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A/406 was made earlier and
in the said complaint there is no iota of the allegations against the
petitioners for any offence committed at Delhi. Therefore, by
registering a case at Delhi, the MLC was not the base and the case
was registered only on transfer from SSP, Ghaziabad. It is also not
in dispute that any action for the assault committed by the
petitioners upon the complainant on 26.05.2014 was not taken.
7. In the case of Amrendu Jyoti & Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh
& Ors. 2014 (9) SCALE 162 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7. The core question thus is whether the
allegations made in the F.I.R. constitute a
continuing offence. We find from the F.I.R. that
all the incidents alleged by the complainant in
respect of the alleged cruelty are said to have
occurred at Delhi. The cruel and humiliating
words spoken to the 2nd Respondent/wife by her
husband, elder brother-in-law and elder sister-
in-law for bringing less dowry are said to have
been uttered at Delhi. Allegedly, arbitrary
demands of lakhs of rupees in dowry have been
made in Delhi. The incident of beating and
dragging the Respondent No. 2 and abusing her
in filthy language also is said to have taken
place at Delhi. Suffice it to say that all overt
acts, which are said to have constituted cruelty
have allegedly taken place at Delhi. The
allegations as to what has happened at
Ambikapur are as follows:
No purposeful information has been
received from the in-laws of Kiran even
on contacting on telephone till today.
They have been threatened and abused
and two years have been elapsed and the
in-laws have not shown any interest to
call her to her matrimonial home and
since then Kiran is making her both ends
meet in her parental home. To get rid of
the ill-treatment and harassment of the
in-laws of Kiran, the complainant is
praying for registration of an FIR and
request for immediate legal action so
that Kiran may get appropriate justice.
8. We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be
said to be a continuing one as contemplated by
Sections 178and 179 of the Code. We do not
agree with the High Court that in this case the
mental cruelty inflicted upon the Respondent No.
2 "continued unabated" on account of no effort
having been made by the Appellants to take her
back to her matrimonial home, and the threats
given by the Appellants over the telephone. It
might be noted incidentally that the High Court
does not make reference to any particular piece
of evidence regarding the threats said to have
been given by the Appellants over the telephone.
Thus, going by the complaint, we are of the view
that it cannot be held that the Court at
Ambikapur has jurisdiction to try the offence
since the appropriate Court at Delhi would have
jurisdiction to try the said offence. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed.
9. However, we consider it appropriate, in the
interest of justice to permit the Court at
Ambikapur to proceed with the trial of Criminal
Case arising out of F.I.R. No. 798 of 2005 dated
31.12.2005, in exercise of powers conferred on
this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of
India."
8. It is admitted that the place of occurrence mentioned in
column No.5 of FIR is Meerut. It is also admitted that the
complainant never lived with the petitioners at Delhi.
9. Keeping in view the settled position of law and the
allegations made by the complainant, I am considered opinion that
no offence has ever committed at Delhi. Therefore, Delhi Police
has no jurisdiction to investigate the case in FIR in question.
10. However, in the interest of justice, I direct the State to
transfer the FIR to PS Lisadi Gate, Meerut(UP) for further
proceedings against the petitioners.
11. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed.
Crl. M.C. 1678/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT, J
AUGUST 11, 2015
jg
