Delhi High Court
State vs Devender Singh & Ors. on 23 October, 2018
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:23.10.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 476/2017
STATE ..... Petitioner
versus
DEVENDER SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
SI Dharamvir Singh, PS CWC Nanak Pura.
For the Respondent : Mr. Varun Agarwal, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
23.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 476/2017 & Crl.M.A.10746/2017 (stay),
Crl.M.A.10747/2017 (for condonation of delay)
1. Petitioner State has filed this revision petition impugning order
dated 03.11.2016, whereby, the first Revisional Court allowed an
application filed by respondents under Section 177 read with Section
461 Cr.P.C and held that the Police Station Crime (Women) Cell,
Nanakpura would not have the jurisdiction to investigate the subject
FIR No.127/2012 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, Police Station
Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura and directed return of the Charge
Sheet filed by the SHO.
2. Subject FIR was registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC on
the complaint filed by the wife of respondent No. 1. The Metropolitan
Magistrate by order dated 04.05.2016 rejected the application filed by
the respondents under section 177 read with 461 Cr.P.C. and took
cognizance. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed by the
respondents impugning the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate
taking cognizance.
3. Learned APP for the State submits the Revisional Court
committed a jurisdictional error inasmuch as the Revisional Court was
not empowered to transfer the FIR, which jurisdiction lay only with
the High Court. Learned APP for the State further contends that by
Notification F.No.1/16/2007/HP-1/Estt./7607 dated 11.02.2008,
Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura has been declared to be a Police
Station having jurisdiction over the whole of National Capital
Territory of Delhi. He submits that in view of the said Notification,
the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the
petitioner and contends that the First Revisional Court has correctly
passed the impugned order. He however, submits that the husband and
wife and the family have reconciled their disputes and the
complainant and the respondent No.1 have started residing together as
husband and wife since 13.04.2018.
5. Complainant is also present in Court in person. She has also
filed a petitioner (Crl.M.C.4773/2018) seeking quashing of the subject
FIR based on the settlement.
6. Reference may be drawn to Section 177 Cr.P.C., which reads as
under:
"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence
shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
7. In terms of Section 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily
be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it
was committed.
8. Subject FIR has been registered in Police Station Nanakpura.
Notification dated 11.02.2008, by which the Police Station Nanakpura
was established, reads defines the jurisdiction as under:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of
section 2 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) read with the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Notification No. U- 11011/2/74-UTL (i)
dated the 20th March, .1974, the Lieutenant Governor of
the National Capital Territory of Delhi, hereby directs
and declares the Crime (Women) Cell of the Delhi
Police, Nanak Pura, New Delhi to be a Police Station for
the registration and investigation of cases relating to the
matrimonial disputes i.e. torture, harassment for the sake
of dowry demand, attracting cases of rape, attempt to
rape, molestation, sexual harassment and any other cases
of crime against women requiring Investigation by the
said Crime (Women) Cell and further that its officers of
the rank of Inspector and above shall enjoy the powers of
officer-in charge of a Police Station, for exercising
powers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) in the investigation of the
cases assigned to it, and shall have jurisdiction over the
whole of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, with
immediate effect."
(underlining supplied)
9. In terms of the above Notification, Crime (Women) Cell of the
Delhi Police, Nanak Pura, New Delhi has been notified to be a Police
Station for the registration and investigation of cases relating to the
matrimonial disputes i.e. torture, harassment for the sake of dowry
demand, attracting cases of rape, attempt to rape, molestation, sexual
harassment and any other cases of crime against women. Said Police
Station has jurisdiction over the whole of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi.
10. By High Court's Order No.15/DHC/Gaz/G-3/VI.E.2(a)/2012
dated 23.07.2012, the concerned Magistrate was assigned the work of
Police Station Nanakpura.
11. Since Crime (Women) Cell of the Delhi Police, Nanak Pura,
New Delhi has been notified to be a Police Station for the registration
and investigation of cases relating to the matrimonial disputes and has
jurisdiction over the whole of the National Capital Territory of Delhi
and further concerned Magistrate was assigned the work of Police
Station Nanakpura, the Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the FIR
which was registered in Police Station Crime (Women) Cell
Nanakpura under section 498A, 406/34 IPC and did not commit any
error by rejecting the application filed by the respondents under
Section 177 read with Section 461 Cr.P.C.
12. Further, as the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the subject FIR, the Revisional Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in directing return of the chargesheet to the SHO/IO
concerned.
13. In view of the above impugned order dated 03.11.2016 is not
sustainable and is, accordingly, quashed.
14. Since parties have settled their disputes and subject FIR No.
127/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, Police Station Crime
(Women) Cell, Nanakpura and the consequent proceedings emanating
therefrom have been quashed by order of today's date in
Crl.M.C.4773/2018 titled Pooja Singh Versus State of NCT & Ors.,
the consequential order of remit is not being passed.
15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to cost.
OCTOBER 23, 2018/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
