Devinder Gupta, J.
1. This petition was instituted on 22.3.1992 praying for quashing of FIR No. 56/90 registered at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on 21.3.1990 for offences under Sections 406/494/498A, IPC; to restrain the respondents from arresting the petitioners in connection with commission of the afore-mentioned offences and to stay further proceeding.
2. Because of the subsequent developments after institution of the petition including the fact that challan has since been presented, it is the admitted case of the parties that the only point, which now survives for consideration in this petition is of the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts to entertain and try the criminal case instituted on the basis of FIR No. 56/90 of Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The fact that question of jurisdiction alone remains to be decided in this petition is also evident from the order passed by the Supreme Court on 28.10.1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 1894/96 titled as Sri Kishan Chand Chopra and Others v. State (Delhi Administration) and Others.
3. Only those facts, which now are relevant for deciding the question arising for determination are being noticed by us though the parties in their respective affidavits have narrated their own version on those facts, on which the petitioner initially had sought the reliefs as claimed in the petition.
4. The marriage of Mahinder Kumar Chopra petitioner No. 2 with Ms. Ruby daughter of Shri Dharam Chand Ghambir was solemnised on 8.5.1989 at Delhi. On 9.5.1989 the marriage party left for Bangalore Along with Ms. Ruby where they arrived on 11.5.1989. Reception was arranged by petitioner No. 1, the father of petitioner No. 2 to bless the newly wed at Bangalore on 12.5.1989 and on 14.5.1989 the couple left for Hong Kong for honey moon. On their way back they arrived at Bombay on 25.5.1989 and reached Bangalore on 30.5.1989. Admittedly, Ms. Ruby left her matrimonial home at Bangalore for Delhi on 19.6.1989 and thereafter she has continued to stay at Delhi.
5. On a petition filed by petitioner No. 2, an ex parte decree declaring marriage to be null and void was passed by the Family Court of Bangalore. On 2.10.1989 petitioner No. 2 contracted second marriage in Madras. On 16.10.1989 Civil Suit No. 2947/89 was filed by petitioners No. 1 and 2 against Ms. Ruby, her parents, brothers and Pandit Chander Bhan, who had arranged the marriage for return of jewellery and certain other articles and for damages etc. in this Court.
6. On 17.10.1989 complaint (Annexure-B) was addressed by Ms. Ruby to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, the Deputy Commissioner, Anti Dowry Cell, New Delhi; and the Inspector General of Police, Bangalore alleging in human cruel treatment, harassment on account of want of dowry and mis appropriation of her Stridhan by her husband (petitioner No. 2) and her in-laws and also complaining that she was deserted by her husband after 11/2 months of her marriage. Ms. Ruby, on 31.10.1989 is alleged to have come to know about the ex parts decree passed by Family Court in Bangalore where after she filed an application for setting aside the said decree. After the aforementioned complaint was sent statement of Ms. Ruby was recorded on the basis of which a report was entered vide D.D. No. 11-A at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and on 21.2.1990 FIR No. 56 /90 was registered for offences under Sections 406/494, IPC at Police Station, Kirti Nagar. It is the case of the petitioners that Bangalore Police after enquiring into the complaint of Ms. Ruby dated 17.10.1989 and in 1991 concluded that the same was false. Consequently the complaint was filed.
7. Criminal Writ Petition No. 751/89 was instituted by the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Police to summon the petitioners from Bangalore to appear at Delhi in connection with the complaint of Ms. Ruby dated 17.10.1989 and also the jurisdiction of Delhi Police in carrying on the investigation on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter since no offence at all had been committed in Delhi. It was prayed that the entire proceedings initiated by the Delhi Police be quashed. An application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was also filed for an interim relief. The writ petition was admitted for hearing. By way of an interim order, Delhi Police was restrained from summoning petitioners 1 and 2 from Bangalore to appear before them at Delhi. The interim order was confirmed on 8.12.1989. It is the case of the petitioners that in order to circumvent and by pass the orders, which were passed in Cr.Writ No. 751/89. FIR No. 56/90 was registered on 21.2.1990 at Police Station, Kirti Nagar for offences under Section 406/494, IPC knowing fully well that Delhi Police had no jurisdiction either to register an FIR for the offences, which were never committed in any part of the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi of to investigate the same.
8. Aggrieved against the registration of case by the Delhi Police at Delhi and against the alleged harassment and on coming to know of the issuance of warrants of arrest petitioners 1 and 2 filed Cr. Writ No. 73/92 in this Court, in which a Misc. Application (Cr. Misc. 71/92) was also filed. On 17.2.1992 notices were issued to the respondents. An interim order was also passed that the petitioners shall neither be arrested, nor called to police station till further orders. Petitioner No. 3 and petitioners 4 to 7 also filed Cr. Writ No. 102/92 and Cr. Writ No. 119/92 respectively for same and similar relief. It is stated that the petitioners after withdrawing the said petitions filed this consolidated petition instead of keeping separate petitions pending for same and similar relief.
9. It is the case of the petitioners that they are resident of Bangalore. As per the allegations made in the complaint, (Annexure-B) dated 17.10.1989 or in the statement, on the basis of which FIR No. 56/90 was registered at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, no offence can be said to have been committed at Delhi. The offences, if any, on the basis of the allegations as made in the complaint can be said to have been committed only at Bangalore. As such Delhi Police had neither any authority to register the comlaint nor jurisdiction to investigate the same and on that basis it is alleged that the Courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to try the criminal case.
10. In the aforementioned background arguments were heard at length. For the purpose of deciding the point of jurisdiction only the bare allegations made in the complaint and in the statement on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 56/90 has been registered have to be looked into.
11. It was contended in behalf of the petitioners that for the offence under Section 494, IPC a criminal complaint has separately been preferred by Ms. Ruby of which cognizance has also been taken by Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House where the said complaint is stated to be pending. For that reason the challenge in this petition is only for the registration of FIR No. 56/90, its investigation, filing of challan for an offence under Section 406, IPC. It was urged that commission of offence of criminal mis appropriation or breach of trust is alleged and is applicable not to the dowry articles but only to the Stridhan property. For such property there is no allegation of either of entrustment or of any demand having been made at Delhi. Criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation of any of the alleged Stridhan property, as per the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement, at the best took place at Bangalore and not at Delhi. Learned Counsel for the respondent urged that there are clear allegations that despite demand the respondents are no prepared to return the articles, details of which is given in the complaint. It includes those dowry articles, which were given at the time of marriage at Delhi. The entrustment thus is clearly spelt out to have taken place in Delhi with respect to those articles, which were given at the time of marriage at Delhi.
12. The offence of criminal breach of trust is punishable under Section 406, IPC and is defined in Section 405.
13. In order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, the necessary ingredients are entrustment with the accused of some property or with any domain or power over it and in respect of that property so entrusted there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal, in violation of a direction of law or legal contract by the accused himself and by some one else, which he willing to suffer to do so.
14. In the complaint dated 17.10.1989 after mentioning detail and particulars of various presents given to her by her parents as well as her in-laws at the time of her marriage, it is stated by Ms. Ruby that the same form part of her Stridhan under the law. Legally she alone is legally entitled to retain the same. It is further stated that she Along with other members of marriage party was taken by train to Bangalore where she arrived on 11.5.1989. Shortly after reception on 12.5.1989 mother-in-law took into her custody almost her entire valuable jewellery as well as other cash presents, received by her at the time of reception. It is alleged that later on when she demanded her dowry for her use from her mother-in-law, on a number of times, the same was denied. After making allegations of the alleged cruel behavior of her in laws, making demands of dorwy and the alleged atrocities committed upon her, it is alleged that her father brought her back with only wearing clothes and a few jewellery items, which she was wearing, namely, Mangal Sutra, Pandel, pair of ear rings, pair of bangles, engagement ring and a couple of suits. It is further stated that neither her husband, nor her in-laws are prepared to allow her to stay at Bangalore. They are also not prepared to return valuable and other articles, which they are retaining. They intend to misappropriate all her articles under a false pretext and made up accusations.
15. FIR 56/90 was registered on the statement of Ms. Ruby. The statement is in vernacular. Its translation reads:
'I state that I am living with my parents at the address mentioned above. My marriage took place on 8.5.1989 with Shri Mohinder Chopra son of Shri Kishan Chopra resident of 67, Anchoret B.T. St., Bangalore (Karnataka) in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. In my marriage, my parents gave one golden mutter mala set, one golden set, one pair of golden bangles, 14 gold ginnies, one Tagri of Silver, and of pair of Pajeb (Silver), one draft of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,801 /- in cash. My in-laws gave 28 gold Churi's, one pair of golden sofet, one paid or tops, golden chain, one pandal, one Mangal Sutra (Gold), one golden Tagri and 22 pairs of Sarees in gift. On the occasion of PERIPONA (Blessings) DADI SAS gave one golden gunnie, father-in- law and mother-in-law one set, mother-in-law of younger sister-in-law Kiran gave one of gold. At the time of reception, silver Catteries were given. I remained at my in-laws house for about 41 days and during the said period, the in-laws people teased me for dowry. They bet me and threatened me. They started demanding Maruti Car and V.C.R., My father-in-law, mother-in-law,husband, brother-in-law, Gopal, Naresh, Lalit, Bhola and sister-in-law Anita started taunting me. They started telling that they had received proposals of marriage from rich people and my parents had not given dowry of exceptional type. My Chacha Sansar (uncle, father-in-law) Shyam Sunder and Topan, resident of Punjabi Bagh, Delhi used to place demands of one article to my father and they used to telephone in my in-laws at Bangalore. Thereafter, my in-laws used to give telephone calls to my parents at Delhi. The demand of Maruti Van, V.C.R. and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) used to be made and used to abuse me throughout the day. I was not allowed to give telephone call to my house at Delhi. My husband had forcibly taken my signatures on blank paper and blank cheque. I do not know what has been written in those papers. On 19.6.1989, I came to my parents house along with my father and brought two golden churi, one pair of tops, one ring, one Mangal Sutra, one chain, pandal, and two pairs of clothes Along with me. The rest of my entire belongings and jewellery is with in-laws. Now I have come to know that my husband has contacted second marriage on 29.10.1989. My in-laws had sent me paper containing blessings. I do not know why they sent me aforesaid letter and papers and if my husband wants to keep me properly. I want to stay with him otherwise. My articles should be handed over to me. I have heard the statement and it is correct'.
16. The aforementioned statement was recorded on 23.10.1989 but FIR on such statement was registered only on 21.2.1990. In addition to what was stated by the complainant in her complaint she added that 'Now I have come to know that my husband has contacted second marriage on 20.10.1989 and that Shyam Sunder and Topan residing at Punjabi Bagh, Delhi also used to make demand for dowry from Delhi. They used to phone up her in-law at Bangalore where after the in-laws would make demand on phone to her parents at Delhi.
17. Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code while casting a duty upon an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station to enter in a book kept for that purpose the substance of information a book kept for that purpose received of commission of non-cognizable offence within limits of such police station further authorities him to investigate a non cognizable case without orders of a Magistrate.
18. Section 181, Cr.P.C. deals with the venue of trial of cases of certain offences. Sub-section (4) of Section 181 deals specifically with the venue of trial of offence of criminal mis-appropriation or of criminal breach of trust that the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property, which is the subject of offence was received or retained, or was required to be, returned or accounted for by the accused for, by the accused person. It reads:
'181 (1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) 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, by the accused person.'
19. Irrespective of the place of the commission of offence to be the venue of trial, by way of amendment in Sub-section (2) of Section 182, Cr.P.C. by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1978, a right is now conferred upon a woman to make a ,complaint relating to an offence of Bigamy at the place of her permanent residence after the commission of the offence, instead of at the place where she last resided with the husband. Sub-section (2) of Section 182, Cr.P.C. reads:
'Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage, or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence.'
All articles other than the dowry articles were either presented or given to the complainant at Bangalore, as per the allegations made by her in the complaint dated 17.10.1989. The entrustment of the articles and jewellery etc. either given to her at Delhi or at Bangalore also took place at Bangalore. The complaint reads:
'Shortly, after the reception on 12.5.1989, the mother-in-law took into her custody almost all the valuable jewellery detailed above of the applicant, as well as the other cash presents received by the applicant at the time of reception under the plea of keeping them in safe custody in the locker much against the wishes of the applicant. The applicant was given only a few articles namely, Mangle Suter, a locket, a pair of ear rings and, two bangles. Even later on the applicant demanded her jewellery for her use from her mother-in-law a number of times but the same was denied'.
20. It is further alleged that she was brought back to Delhi from Bangalore by her father with only a few articles. Rest of the articles were retained by mother-in-law at Bangalore. Such allegation in para 19 reads:
'the applicant's father brought her back with only wearing clothes and a few jewellery items, which she was wearing as detailed above i.e. a Mangle Sutra, a pandal, a pair of ear rings and pair of bangles, engagement ring and a couple of suits.
21. The allegations in the complaint about retention and return of the dowry articles and Stridhan property are made was as follows:
That neither the applicant's husband nor her in-laws are prepared to keep the applicant nor they are prepared to return her valuable 'ISTRIDHAN ARTICLES' as detailed above, which they are retaining. The intend to misappropriate all her articles under a false pretext and made up accusations.
22. Even in the statement made on 23.10.1989, which forms the basis for the FIR the allegation of retention of her belongings including jewellery are made on the same line as follows:
'I came to my parents house Along with one ring, one Mangal Sutra, one chain, Pandal and two pairs of clothes Along with me. The rest of my entire belongings and jewellery is with in-laws'.
23. Neither on the complaint nor in the statement aforementioned there is any allegation of entrustment to or demand for return of any part of the articles of jewellery etc. belonging to Ms. Ruby at Delhi. As per the complaint and the statement the entrustment was at Bangalore. As regards retention also, the allegations are that the property is being retained at Bangalore. There is no allegation that demand for return to to account for the property was at Delhi. The only act attributed at Delhi is that of demand for dowry having been made by the uncle in-law when it is stated:
'My Chacha Sansar (uncle, father-in-law) Shyam Sunder and Topan, resident of Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, used to place demands of one article to my father and they used to telephone my in-laws at Bangalore. Thereafter, my in-law used to give telephone calls to my parents at Delhi. The demand of Maruti Van, V.C.R. and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) used to be made'.
24. Thus with respect to the dowry articles and other articles allegations of entrustment as also retention is at Bangalore and not at Delhi.
25. For offence under Section 406 jurisdiction would be at Bangalore, but because of Sub-section (2) of Section 182 the Court within whose local jurisdiction the wife of the first marriage has permanent residence, after commission of the offence of Bigamy, will have jurisdiction. As Delhi is permanent resident of Ms. Ruby, Delhi Courts will have jurisdiction to try a case for an offence under Section 494, IPC against the petitioners. As per the statement, which led to registration of the FIR, both offences under Sections 406 and 494, IPC are so connected together that they may be called as having been committed in the course of same transaction for which undoubtedly Delhi Courts will have jurisdiction to try the entire case, because of provision of Section 184, Cr.P.C. read with Section 223. Section 184 deals with the venue in relation to joinder of charges and joint trials. Under the Code when an accused person is charged with and tried at one trial for all or more offences, it is but reasonable to assume that the venue of the trial can be laid in any local jurisdiction within which any of those offences may be inquired into or tried. Section 184 makes it clear that where offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with and tried in one trial or offences committed by the several persons are such that may be charged and tried together, the offences may be inquired into and tried by any Court competent to try any of the offences. Section 184 has to be read with Sections 219, 220,221 and 223, Cr.P.C. It has not been disputed that for offence under Section 494,IPC, the petitioners can be tried in Delhi Courts.
26. It was urged by learned Counsel for the respondents that separate complaint for offence under Section 494, IPC had to be filed since police despite recording of the statement of Ms. Ruby had not proceeded to register an FIR. The complaint presently is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House.
27. In view of the fact that now challan has been presented pursuant to the offence of Bigamy, for which private complaint was filed by Ms. Ruby, it will be but appropriate to direct the said complaint also to be taken up by the same Court, which is dealing with the challan. It will also avoid unnecessary harassment to the petitioners.
28. Resultantly, we hold that FIR was rightly registered and investigated by the Delhi Police and that the Delhi Courts undoubtedly have jurisdiction to try the petitioners for offences under Sections 406 and 494, IPC pursuant to the investigation carried out in FIR No. 56/90.
While dismissing the petition, it is directed that the criminal complaint pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi shall stand transferred and will be tried Along with the challan stated to be pending in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.
Petition dismissed.