Above: Women protesting against the dilution of Section 498A in Delhi (file pic)

~By Kunal Rao

The Delhi High Court has noted that it was not necessary that a FIR under Section 498A should be registered at the same place where the marriage was consummated while refusing to quash an FIR registered by woman against her husband and in-laws under Section 498A.

The court directions came on the plea filed by the husband of the woman who had approached the court seeking quashing of the FIR on the grounds that Delhi has no jurisdiction to register the case as the marriage was performed at Calcutta, and the family also resided in Calcutta and therefore the FIR should be registered in Calcutta.

The bench headed by Justice Mukta Gupta said: “Woman is living with her parents in Delhi and sought return of her jewellery entrusted to her husband and parent in laws at Delhi, this court would have the jurisdiction to try the offence. Thus this court found no ground to quash the FIR hence petition dismissed.”

“Section 177 CrPC is qualified by Section 181 CrPC and sub section (4) thereof provides that any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for has also the jurisdiction to try the offence,” said the bench.

Justice Gupta further noted: “A perusal of the FIR reveals that the marriage between the parties was performed at Calcutta and the entrustment of articles was also at Calcutta, however, the woman alleges that after the marriage when she used to demand her jewellery which was entrusted to the parents-in-law they used to refuse it and state that her husband had sold it. The in-laws would insult her on trivial matters and when she failed to comply with their demands she was sent to her paternal home in Delhi and she was allowed to enter their house only if she brought twenty lakhs with her.”

“FIR narrates a continuous course of harassment caused to the women and that every time maliciously she was sent to Delhi at her paternal home. The parents of women sought return of dowry articles entrusted to her husband at Delhi, This is why the course of action by registration of FIR is under the jurisdiction of Delhi,” the bench pointed out.

—India Legal Bureau