Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Vijay Choudhary, Vice President – Human Resources at Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Gurgaon, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.347 of 2016 registered at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2, Mrs. Hetal Desai, alleging offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the petitioner and others. The petitioner contended that he was a colleague of the complainant's husband and that all alleged incidents of cruelty and dowry demand took place in Gurgaon and Delhi, where the parties resided and worked. No part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Borivali Police Station, Mumbai. The State of Maharashtra and the complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the complainant resided in Mumbai and that some acts of harassment extended to Mumbai. The court examined the FIR and found that all specific allegations pertained to events in Gurgaon and Delhi. The court held that the mere residence of the complainant in Mumbai did not confer jurisdiction on Mumbai police to investigate the FIR. Applying the principle that territorial jurisdiction for criminal offences is determined by the place where the offence is committed, the court quashed the FIR as an abuse of process of law. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 482 CrPC read with Article 226 of Constitution of India - FIR registered at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, alleging offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Petitioner, husband's colleague, resided and worked in Gurgaon, Haryana; alleged acts of cruelty and dowry demand occurred in Gurgaon and Delhi - No part of cause of action arose within Mumbai - Held that FIR liable to be quashed for lack of territorial jurisdiction (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, is maintainable when the alleged incidents of cruelty and dowry demand occurred entirely outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. FIR No.347 of 2016 registered at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 498A IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- 1961
- Article 226 Constitution of India
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 88
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3702 of 2017
A. S. Gadkari, Shivkumar Dige
Mr. Sanjay Kumar a/w Abhishek Singh and Mr. Praveet Shetty i/by Res Legal Advocates and Solicitors for the Petitioner, Mr. Ajay Patil APP for the Respondent No.1-State, Ms. Meenaz Kakalia for the Respondent No.2
State Of Maharashtra, Mrs. Hetal Desai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR No.347 of 2016 registered at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai
Filing Reason
Petitioner, a colleague of the complainant's husband, was implicated in a dowry harassment case despite all alleged incidents occurring in Gurgaon and Delhi, outside the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai police
Issues
Whether the FIR registered at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, is maintainable when the alleged incidents of cruelty and dowry demand occurred entirely outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that all alleged acts of cruelty and dowry demand took place in Gurgaon and Delhi, and no part of cause of action arose within Mumbai, hence FIR is not maintainable.
Respondent No.2 argued that she resides in Mumbai and some acts of harassment extended to Mumbai, thus Mumbai police have jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Territorial jurisdiction for criminal offences is determined by the place where the offence is committed. Mere residence of the complainant in a particular jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction on the police of that area to investigate an FIR when no part of the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction. Continuing an FIR without territorial jurisdiction amounts to an abuse of process of law.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report No.347 of 2016.
All the allegations in the FIR pertain to incidents that took place in Gurgaon and Delhi. No part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Borivali Police Station, Mumbai.
The FIR is liable to be quashed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Procedural History
FIR No.347 of 2016 was registered at Borivali Police Station, Mumbai, on the complaint of Mrs. Hetal Desai. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.3702 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking quashing of the FIR. The petition was reserved on 20th July 2023 and pronounced on 11th August 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Section 3, Section 4
