Tuesday, October 21, 2014

One more jurisdictional quash fails. Why it't futile 2 file quash, spend LOT of money & expect miracles !!


Notes :
*********************
* Wife is alleged to have given a fake Janampathri and hidden the fact she is 'maanglik'
* Mutual differences also arise between the couple and lot of cases are filed mutually
* Husband finally gets an exparte divorce
* Both well educated couple litigate away to glory !! (Sadly so)
* Wife files 498a, husband tries jurisdictional quash, but fails !!
* The court says and we quote "....The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioners was that no alleged offence was committed at Mohali, therefore, the court at Mohali has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. Perusal of the FIR would reveal that the complainant was harassed, maltreated and tortured by the petitioners on account of demand of dowry at Mohali. At this stage, the Court has to see the prima facie allegations levelled against the petitioners. A perusal of the FIR, the report submitted by the Station House Officer in terms of Section 173, Cr.P.C., the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, framing charges against the petitioners, would clearly spell out that the petitioners did commit the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, at Mohali. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ....."


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH


Criminal Misc. No. M-26983 of 2010

Date of decision:-24.07.2012

Vikram Khorana and others ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present:- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-complainant.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.359 dated 20.09.2008, under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Phase-I, Mohali, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., order of framing charge and charges framed against the petitioners during pendency of the trial.

The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent No.3-complainant Dr. Deeksha Arora was solemnized with Vikram Khorana (petitioner No.1) son of Ram Singh Khorana and Renu Khorana (petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively), on 05.11.2007. At the time of marriage, complainant Dr. Deeksha Khorana was undergoing her internship at Dental College, Yamuna Nagar, while her husband Vikram Khorana was working as software engineer at Mohali. After marriage, the complainant stayed with her husband Vikram Khorana at Mohali till March 2008. After resuming her training, the complainant had to visit and stay with her husband on the week end. Petitioners No.2 and 3, i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, also used to visit and stay with the complainant and her husband at Mohali. The petitioners retained the belongings of the complainant with them and converted the same to their own use by misappropriating the articles belonging to her (complainant). The petitioners mentally and physically harassed the complainant with a view that the parents of the complainant would give more and more dowry in the shape of cash and costly items. The petitioners were harassing the complainant at Mohali. The petitioners tortured the complainant to the extent that she had taken the decision twice to end her life at Mohali. The efforts to make the petitioners understand and keep the complainant properly failed and ultimately the complainant forced to leave the company of her husband. Finding no other way, the complainant lodged the report with the police, which ultimately resulted into registration of the FIR (Annexure P-1). After thorough investigation, the investigating agency presented the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the three petitioners. Vide detailed order (Annexure P-4) dated 03.06.2010 learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, ordered framing of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC against the petitioners. Resultantly, the charges (Annexure P-3) were framed on 03.6.2010 itself. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the complainant were permanent residents of Jammu. Dowry-less marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 was solemnized at Jammu on 05.11.2007. Respondent No.3-complainant was pursuing her internship at Yamuna Nagar, while petitioner No.1 was working as a software engineer at Mohali. Due to differences, the complainant filed frivolous complaints against the petitioners at Jammu. She also preferred a complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali. He further submitted that the parents of the complainant showed fake 'Janampatri' of the complainant, therefore, the petitioners side got the wrong information after comparison of the 'Janampatri' of petitioner No.1 with the fake 'Janampatri' of respondent No.3-complainant. After marriage when the dispute arose then they came to know that respondent No.3- complainant was 'Maanglik'. He further submitted that a lot of civil litigations started between both the factions. Seeing no other alternative, petitioner No.1 had filed a petition for grant of divorce at Jammu on the ground of cruelty and the ex-parte decree was granted in favour of petitioner No.1. He further submitted that respondent No.3-complainant had also filed complaints with the police at Jammu, however, the same were found to be false and frivolous. In the end the learned counsel submitted that no offence was committed at Mohali, therefore, the Mohali police had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint and now the learned trial court at Mohali has also no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against the petitioners. In support of his conetntions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments :-

Kanchan gulati and another v. The State and others 2007(2) F.J.C.C. 216, Gurmeet Singh v. State of M.P. 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 101, Balwinder Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Haryana 1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 483, Mangat Ram v. The State of Haryana and another 1988(2) P.L.R. 470, and T. Venkateshwarlu and others v. State of A.P. and others 1999 Crl. L.J. 39. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was presented on 01.9.2009 and the charges against the petitioners were framed on 08.02.2010, therefore, at this stage, no ground is made out for quashing the FIR, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the order framing the charges against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-complainant submitted that the charges against the petitioners were framed after perusing the FIR, the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other material available on record, therefore, no case for interference by this Court is made out.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their active assistance gone through the material available on record.

Whatever had been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners was hotly contested by learned counsel for the respondents except the factum of marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.3 and the fact that at the time of marriage, the petitioner No.1 was working as software engineer at Mohali, while the complainant was undergoing her internship at Dental College, Yamuna Nagar. The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioners was that no alleged offence was committed at Mohali, therefore, the court at Mohali has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. Perusal of the FIR would reveal that the complainant was harassed, maltreated and tortured by the petitioners on account of demand of dowry at Mohali. At this stage, the Court has to see the prima facie allegations levelled against the petitioners. A perusal of the FIR, the report submitted by the Station House Officer in terms of Section 173, Cr.P.C., the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, framing charges against the petitioners, would clearly spell out that the petitioners did commit the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, at Mohali. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and others (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 142 held that once the charges are framed, the High Court would not be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings except where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course.

Keeping in view the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

July 24, 2012                       

( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI )

JUDGE



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist