Delhi High Court
Gulab Bothra vs State on 11 March, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 11, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 50/2015
GULAB BOTHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayendra Sevada, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with Inspector
Yudhbir Singh
SI Richh Pal, SHO/Mahila Thana,
Bikaner, Rajasthan
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of order of 3rd September, 2014 is sought in this
petition on the ground that cause of action for filing the FIR for the
offences under Sections 498A/406/506 of IPC was very much there
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that so
far as allegation of offence under Section 506 of IPC is concerned,
the cause of action arose in Bikaner, Rajasthan but petitioner was
thrown out of her matrimonial house at Bikaner in April, 2007 and
she had come to her brother's place at Delhi where a demand of
`1,00,000/- was made on telephone by her sister-in-law (Nanand)
Crl. M.C. No. 50/2015 Page 1
with the threat that if she does not pay `1,00,000/- for inauguration
(Moohurat) of the house [which was to be constructed by
petitioner's sister-in-law (Nanand)] then she cannot return back to
her matrimonial house in Bikaner, Rajasthan. As per the FIR, the
said demand was met and petitioner returned back to her
matrimonial house in Bikaner, Rajasthan.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the cause of
action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, so the
impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
Attention of this Court is drawn to the order of 27 th October,
2014 whereby the matrimonial case of petitioner's husband was
transferred by Apex Court from Bikaner, Rajasthan to Delhi.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the matrimonial case
was for restitution of conjugal rights filed by petitioner's husband
and the said case was transferred to Delhi as petitioner is residing
in Delhi since May, 2013. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel
that the DV Act proceedings and proceedings under Section 125
Cr. P.C. have been initiated by petitioner against her husband in
Delhi in the year 2013 and they are pending before Delhi Courts
and so this FIR as well as the impugned order deserve to be set
aside and the trial of this FIR case now registered in Bikaner be
conducted in Delhi.
Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
State, on instructions, submits that upon transfer of Zero FIR to
Bikaner, Rajasthan, investigation was conducted in which the
petitioner had participated and thereafter the charge-sheet has been
Crl. M.C. No. 50/2015 Page 2
filed on the basis of averments in Zero FIR and the charge-sheet
has been filed for the offences 498-A/406 of IPC at Mahila Thana,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned orders, Zero
FIR (Annexure-D), I find that substantial cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of Bikaner Courts in Rajasthan
and so there is no palpable error in the impugned order. Mere
transfer of petition for restitution of conjugal rights from Bikaner
to Delhi Courts would not justify the trial in the Zero FIR within
the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that this
petition be disposed of as not pressed as he has instructions from
petitioner to get the FIR No. 46/2014 under Section 498A/406/34
IPC at Mahila Thana, Bikaner, Rajasthan transferred from Bikaner
Courts, Rajasthan to Courts at Delhi as other litigation of petitioner
is also pending before the Delhi Courts.
It is open for the petitioner to do so. However, while not
commenting upon the merits, this petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2015
rs
Crl. M.C. No. 50/2015 Page 3
