IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SFTC), DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 79/17
Ms. Surinder Kaur ……… Petitioner
State and Others ………. Respondents
File received on assignment on : 20.2.2017
Arguments heard on : 28.2.2017
Order announced on : 09.3.2017
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 10.2.2017 passed by Ld. MM1 (South West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby application u/s.156(3) Cr.PC as well as complaint u/s. 200 Cr.PC were dismissed on the ground that the courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.
- Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner married respondent no.2 on 28.3.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Karnal, Haryana. They lived in their matrimonial home at Karnal for some time. Immediately after the marriage differences arose between them. It is alleged that the petitioner was harassed and treated with cruelty for dowry by the respondent no.2 to 8. It is further alleged that in the month of April 2015 the petitioner took loan against an F.D. from HDFC Bank on the asking of her husband. Respondent no.2 also took her istridhan gold jewellery to get a loan. It is further alleged that on the asking of the respondent no.2, the petitioner took a loan against property at Pitampura, New Delhi from Tata Finance on 01.10.2015 of Rs.30 lakhs and it was transferred to the account of respondent no.2 on 11.10.2015. It is alleged that respondent no.2 is having extramarital relation with a divorcee. Respondent no.2 also used to have unnatural sex with her. On these allegations, complaint was filed before the Ld. M.M.
- Status report was filed by the police mentioning therein that no demand or harassment or transaction took place within the jurisdiction of Delhi and, as such, Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
- Petitioner filed a protest petition to the report filed by the police. In the protest petition, it was submitted that there are clear allegations of transactions in favour of the respondent no.2 and also of unnatural sex having been committed in Delhi and, therefore, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.
- I have heard Sh. Praveen Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Satwinder Kaur, Ld. APP for respondent No.1 i.e State. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is sufficient material on record against the respondent no.2 to 8 for registration of FIR. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon judgments – Hemant Yaswant Dhage vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Crl. Rev. 79/17. Appeal No. 110/2016, decided by Apex Court on 10.2.2016; Satvinder Kaur vs. State, Criminal Appeal No.1031/1999, decided on 05.10.1999 and Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee
- I have gone through the file. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent no.2 was solemnized at Karnal, Haryana. The petitioner used to live in Delhi after her marriage as she started working in Delhi to earn money. She used to visit Karnal only on weekends. There is nothing in the complaint that the respondent no.2 ever visited her in Delhi. In para 2.31 of her complaint, it has been specifically mentioned by her “accused no.1 never stayed with his wife despite knowing how painful it’s for a female body to work for an entire week and travel to 50 kms. to meet her husband on weekends.”.
- As regards the allegations of the petitioner that she had to take care of all the expenses by withdrawing money from the bank or taking loan, these allegations are not cruelty within the meaning of section 498A IPC. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the offences alleged in the complaint are continuing in nature and, therefore, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is without any merit in view of judgment Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai, Appeal (crl.) No. 904/2004, decided by Apex Court on 17.8.2004. The judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
- In the facts and circumstances of this case, the logic of Crl. Rev. 79/17. section 178 (c) Cr.PC relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied as there is not even a whisper of allegation to any entrustment/demand of dowry or commission of any act of cruelty at Delhi.
- Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Trial court record be sent back with a copy of the order and revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open
(Praveen Kumar) court today on 09.03.2017.
Addl. Sessions Judge (SFTC)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.