SIR KINDLY SEE THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT WHETHER THERE IS ANY INFIRMITY THERE ?? WHICH CLEARLY SAYS THAT DELHI HC HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TRANSFER THE CASE ( IF NOT QUASH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP(Crl.)No. 415/04
Reserved on: 22.10.2007
04.01.2008
Date of Decision: 04.01.2008
Niraj Trivedi .......Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar and Ms. Anita,
Advocates.
versus
$ State of Bihar and Ors. ... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
WP(Crl.)No. 235/04
Parimal Trivedi and Anr. .......Petitioners
Through : Mr.Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar and Ms. Anita,
Advocates.
versus
$ State of Bihar and Ors. ... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be Yes.
allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3.Whether the judgment should be reported Yes.
in the Digest?
: JUDGMENT
1. The above writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of an FIR
No.
0188/02, P.S. Digha, Patna, Bihar registered against the petitioners in
respect
of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition
Act. It is stated by petitioner Niraj Trivedi that he was a permanent
resident
of Delhi and was working in USA. Petitioners Parimal Trivedi and Anju
Trivedi
state that they were permanent resident of Delhi but were working for
gains at
Aruba, Holland. An FIR was got registered against the petitioners being
FIR
No.0188/02 at P.S. Dhiga, Patna, Bihar under Section 498-A IPC and
Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, father-in-law
of Niraj
Trivedi. In the FIR, he alleged that his daughter Shweta was seen and
liked by
the family of the petitioners at Patna before marriage, so marriage was
finalized between Niraj Trivedi and Shweta. He decided to give gifts
worth Rs.8
Lac at his daughter's marriage to be delivered at New Delhi. On 18th
June,
1998, marriage between Shweta and Niraj took place at Delhi and after
marriage
she went to her in-laws' house at Delhi. He (father of Shweta) alleged
that
after 2 days of marriage mother-in-law, husband's elder brother and his
wife and
husband started harassing Shweta for dowry. Shweta and Niraj came to
Patna for
two days and Niraj told him (Mr. V.K. Singh) that he will go to USA on
11th
July. On 11th July Niraj went to USA alone. Shweta lived at Delhi.
Shweta
left for USA on 15th January, 1999. On 22nd January, 1999, Shweta
telephoned
him that her in-laws (mother-in-law, brother-in-law Parimal Trivedi and
his wife
Anju) living in USA all gave beatings to her and abused her in USA and
took away
her ornaments and she was turned out from the house. She asked her
father to
send some money to them (in-laws) or she would be killed. After some
time,
Shweta from USA informed him (Mr.V.K. Singh) on phone that she was made
to abort
against her wishes. She was told that unless her father gives money she
cannot
become mother. On 26th November, 2000, Shweta came to India and lived at
Delhi
at her in-laws' house. Her father alleged that she told that her in-laws
again
gave her beatings. As she was pregnant, she left her in-laws home in
Delhi and
came to her uncles' home at Lodi Road, Delhi wherefrom her father
brought her to
Patna. On 27th July, 2001, Shweta gave birth to a baby girl and her
father
talked to Niraj in USA on telephone and asked her to take Shweta to USA,
as
Shweta wanted to go to USA since she had no differences with her
husband.
Shweta's father got her visa ready and sent her to USA. When Shweta went
to
USA nobody came to airport to pick her up. However, she went to
husband's house
at USA where she came to know that her husband had left that house and
shifted
somewhere else. She was told by neighbours that some girl used to live
with her
husband. She took help of a friend of her father and got arranged an
accommodation for her in USA. She also learnt about her husband's
address
through her father's friend. Complainant V.K.Singh reported to the
police that
he was sure that Shweta's mother-in-law would soon dispose of her
property in
Delhi and after selling ornaments of his daughter would flee to USA.
2. It is stated by the petitioners that on 14th November, 2002 when
this FIR was lodged, Shweta was in USA and her father in Patna lodged
this FIR.
Niraj, Shweta's husband had filed a divorce petition in New Jersey, USA
against
Shweta Trivedi on 8th October, 2002. Shweta returned from USA to Patna
on 21st
November, 2002. She made statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
On 8th
December, 2002, Patna Police came to Delhi and arrested Prabha Trivedi,
mother-
in-law of Shweta from Delhi. She was granted transit bail by learned MM,
Delhi. After getting her mother-in-law arrested, on 8th December, 2002,
Shweta
flew back to USA and contested divorce suit of husband. On 16th
December, 2002
Shweta filed reply to the marriage dissolution complaint filed by Niraj
in
Superior Court of New Jersey, USA and also filed a counter claim against
the
petitioner, Niraj.
3. The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR in the alternate
transfer of this FIR to Delhi on the ground that even if all the
allegations
made in the FIR are accepted on the face value, the Patna Police had no
jurisdiction to investigate the matter since no part of the alleged
offence was
committed within the jurisdiction of Patna Police. It is also stated
that the
allegations made by Mr. V.K. Singh, father of Shweta were without any
basis and
criminal proceedings instituted in Patna were only malafide. Alleged
incidents had taken place either in Delhi or USA. No part of
alleged crime had taken place in Patna. The alleged dowry admittedly was
given
at Delhi not in Patna. It is submitted that Patna Police had illegally
registered FIR and undertaken investigation.
4. The statements made by Ms. Shweta u/S 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are
also on record. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded
before the
Judicial Magistrate, Patna, she narrated that her marriage with Niraj
was
solemnized on 18th June, 1998 (at Delhi). After marriage she went to her
in-
laws' place (at Delhi). For 2-3 days the behavior of her in-laws was
okay.
Thereafter, her in-laws started asking money from her. They used to
abuse and
slap her and pull her hairs. She used to be pushed against the wall.
These
incidents occurred in June 1998 itself. Her husband was a graduate. He
was a
journalist living in USA. He never cared for her disease. Her father
gave
dowry worth Rs. Eight lakh. She had a daughter aged 16 months. Her
husband got
her aborted without her consent. Her in-laws made dowry demands. People
from
her in-laws gave her mental harassment. Mr. Sushil Tiwary and Mrs.
Pramila
Tiwary (her husband's elder brother's) gave her physical trouble. She
wanted to
live with her husband.
5. Reply to the Writ Petition was filed by the respondent no. 3,
who opposed the petition and stated that Writ Petition was not
maintainable. It
was also stated that petitioner was absconding and non-bailable warrants
as well
as process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had been issued against the
petitioner by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Patna Police was
competent to
investigate the matter. The factual situation was denied but it was
stated that
in view of the atrocities met to Shweta at the hand of accused persons
and the
fact that she was left alone and helpless, she had no alternative but to
take
recourse to law at Patna where she was born and brought up and which was
her
shelter in distress.
6. It is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner Niraj had
come to Patna and told V.K. Singh, father of the girl that in case he
gives some
money, Shweta could go to USA within a month. It is submitted that this
was
sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of Patna police. It is further
stated
that father of Shweta had also arranged a conciliation meeting at Patna
and this
was another ground for invoking jurisdiction of Patna.
7. It is not disputed that petitioner Niraj had filed a divorce
petition at New Jersey, USA and Ms. Shweta, daughter of the complainant
V.K.Singh had contested the petition. Reply filed by Ms. Shweta in USA
Court
also contained allegations against Niraj, her husband, though, the
nature of
allegations differ. In order to see as to what was the controversy
between the
parties, it would be appropriate to have a look at the reply filed by
Ms. Shweta
in US Court to the divorce petition of Mr. Niraj. Her reply reads as
under :-
?COUNTERCLAIM
The defendant, Sweta Trivedi, by way of Counterclaim against the
plaintiff
says:-
1.That she was lawfully married to plaintiff Niraj Trivedi, on June 18,
1998, in
a religious ceremony in New Delhi, India.
2.That defendant has resided in New Jersey from January 1999 to November
26,
2000; from October 7, 2002 to November 14, 2002; and from December 8,
2002 to
present.
3.That since the cause of action arose, plaintiff has been a bona fide
resident
of the State Jersey and has ever since and for more than one year next
preceding
the commencement of this case, continued to be such a bona fide
resident.
4.That plaintiff now resides at 82 Liberty Ave, in the city of Jersey
City,
County of Hudson and State of New Jersey.
5.The plaintiff has perpetrated acts of extreme mental cruelty against
the
defendant that in the past and present both endanger her health and make
it
improper and unreasonable for the defendant to cohabit with the
plaintiff under
the same roof. All of the acts that are stated below occurred more than
three
months prior to the filing of this suit and any acts that are included
below
which occurred thereafter are merely to demonstrate the continued nature
of the
plaintiff's acts.
(a) Defendant traveled from India to United states to join her husband
in
January 1999. Thereafter, on or about April 1999, plaintiff was
diagnosed with
Hepatitis.
B. Several weeks later, defendant learned that plaintiff had transmitted
virus to her. Despite defendant's illness, plaintiff failed to show any
warmth
or affection towards the defendant. Plaintiff's actions caused defendant
much
humiliation and distress.
(b) During the course of defendant's treatment for Hepatitis B,
defendants
learned she was pregnant. Upon learning of the pregnancy, plaintiff
insisted
that defendant get an abortion. Although defendant expressed her desire
to have
the baby, plaintiff pressured defendant to undergo an abort ion
procedure on or
about June 1999.
(c) On or about February 2000, plaintiff and defendant learned that
defendant was again pregnant. Despite defendant's wishes, plaintiff
again
pressured her to undergo an abortion procedure.
(d) On or about November 2000, when defendant learned that she was
pregnant, plaintiff initially insisted that defendant have an abortion.
As
defendant refused, plaintiff initially suggested that defendant spend
time in
India to improve her health. Due to the fact that defendant was afraid
she
would be pressured to have a third abortion, she decided to travel of
India to
spend a few months with her family. Although plaintiff purchased what
defendant
assumed was a roundtrip ticket of India, she later learned that he had
actually
purchased a one ? way ticket of India. Plaintiff's actions caused
defendant to
feel deceived and humiliated.
(e) Although defendant attempted to contact her husband during the
course
of the pregnancy, plaintiff avoided all communication with defendant.
Plaintiff's lack of support caused defendant much distress and
humiliation
during her pregnancy.
(f) On or about March 2001, plaintiff emailed the defendant and informed
her he had not want her to join him in the United State. Plaintiff also
informed her that defendant would not be able to return to the United
State
unless he wanted her to plaintiff's actions caused defendant to feel
severely
depressed.
(g) Defendant gave birth to a baby girl on July 27, 2001 in India. After
giving birth, defendant immediately emailed her husband to inform him of
the
birth. Although plaintiff responded by email to the defendant, he merely
informed her that he was very busy in the United State and would call
her when
he found some time. Plaintiff's lack of response cause defendant much
stress.
(h) Defendant remained in India after giving birth to the baby because
plaintiff and his family informed defendant that plaintiff was
scheduling a trip
of India to see her. However, plaintiff postponed many schedule trips
and
ultimately never traveled to India to see the defendant and the baby.
(i) On or about September 2002, defendant attempted to contact the
plaintiff to arrange for financial support documents to allow defendant
and the
baby to apply for a visa and join the plaintiff in the United States.
However,
plaintiff did not return defendant's email or telephone calls.
Plaintiff's
abandonment caused defendant to experience sever depression and
distress.
(j) Or on about September 2002, defendant managed to attain a visa to
allow her to travel to the United States. As the plaintiff failed to
provide
financial support and immigration documents, the baby was unable to
attain a
visa and remained in India with the defendant's parents. Plaintiff's
lack of
support for his daughter caused defendant much distress.
(k) Upon arrival to the United State on October 7, 2002, defendant went
to
her marital home in Jersey City, New Jersey. At this point she
discovered
through neighbours that the plaintiff had moved to new location without
informing the defendant. Plaintiff's actions caused defendant much
humiliation.
(l) On or about October 2002, defendant learned through neighbors that
the
plaintiff was residing with a female during the time that defendant was
abroad
in India.
(m) Although family friends attempted to intervene and arrange for
mediation between the plaintiff and the defendant, plaintiff has never
inquired
about the welfare of his daughter.
(n) To date, plaintiff has not provided any financial support for the
defendant and their daughter, Nandini Trivedi.?
8. It is apparent from perusal of the FIR, statement made by Shweta
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna and from
the
counter claim lodged by her in USA Court that at no point of time
parties lived
together in Patna, the marriage was performed in Delhi. Parties lived
together
either in Delhi or in USA. Except a short visit of two days to Patna
made by
her husband Niraj, there has been no other allegations of her husband
visiting
Patna after marriage. Living of Shweta before marriage at Patna, her
father's
arranging gifts of Rs. 8 lac for Shweta to be given in her marriage or
receiving
telephone calls by her father from Shweta about her matrimonial life or
alleged
atrocities on her, does not create jurisdiction of Patna Police. The
alleged
criminal acts either were committed in Delhi or in USA Instead of
getting an FIR
registered at Delhi, girl's father who was living at Patna chose to get
an FIR
registered at Patna while the girl herself was not in Patna and was
living in
USA.
9. The question of registration and investigation of an FIR has
arisen in 1999 SC 3596 Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Government of NCT,
Delhi)
wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the crime was not
committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of Police station, though the FIR
can be
registered by that Police Station but FIR in such cases should be
forwarded to
the Police Station having jurisdiction over the place where crime is
committed.
9. An argument has been advanced that this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition for quashing of FIR
registered at
Patna. I consider this argument must fail. This Court can exercise
jurisdiction in all those cases where though the crime should have been
registered in Delhi because the cause of action arose in Delhi but under
influence the Police of some other State registers the crime in that
State.
10. Cr.P.C. specifically provides for the jurisdiction of Police
Stations regarding registration of FIR and investigation of case. The
FIR can
be registered even if a part of the crime has taken place within the
jurisdiction of that Police Station. If the crime is spread over the
various
Police Stations, then FIR can be registered at any of the Police Station
within
which the crime has taken place. Crime cannot be registered on the basis
of
residence of the complainant or the residence of the father of the
complainant
or the effect of the crime. If the murder is committed in Delhi and the
effect
is that the wife of the deceased living at Mumbai has become widow, the
crime
cannot be registered at Mumbai Neither if the alleged matrimonial
atrocities
have been committed in Delhi, the crime can be registered in Patna in
respect of
those atrocities because the parents of the wife were living in Patna.
In the
present case, the wife had either lived in Delhi or in USA. She had
contested
her divorce petition in USA and had made allegations of cruelties done
on her in
USA. Thus, place of crime was either Delhi or USA and FIR could have
been
registered either in Delhi or in USA.
11. In view of above discussion the petitions are allowed to the
extent that FIR No. 0188/02, P.S. Digha, Patna, Bihar registered against
the
petitioners in respect of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections
3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act be transferred by the Police of Patna to
Commissioner
of Police, Delhi, who shall mark it to the appropriate Police Station
for
further investigation and action.
Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
January 04, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
