That order was challenged before this Court.
On the same day, that is, 19th January, 1992 at 3.40 p.m., a companyplaint bearing number DD number 18 was lodged by her at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala making various allegations of torture and dowry demand against her husband and parents in law.
Hence, the petition was dismissed.
On the basis of the said FIR, husband and his family members were harassed and arrested.
By Order dated 4th April, 1995, the order passed by the High Court was set aside and matter was remitted for fresh companysideration on the points raised by the respondent in the petition.
A companypromise was arrived at between the parties on the same day and is recorded at the Police Station as DD number 28.
He further pointed out that the matter was remanded by this Court for deciding the effect of the alleged settlement and the findings given by the High Court on the question of territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter by Delhi Police was number disturbed.
1999 Supp 3 SCR 348 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Leave granted.
Rajinder Singh, respondent number 2 was arrested on 4th February, 1993 at Patiala and certain recoveries were effected and he was brought to Delhi and produced before the Metropolitan magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody and, thereafter, released him on bail on 9th February, 1993.
It is her companytention that on 19th January, 1992, she was thrown out from the matrimonial home in Patiala with 4 weeks baby girl and that at that time, she had only wearing apparel.
At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that after rightly holding that the alleged settlement of 19.1.1992 cannot be a ground for quashing the F.I.R., the High Court materially erred in holding that the alleged cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. had number arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Police Station.
A daughter was born on 19th December, 1991.
Thereafter, she came to Delhi to live with her parents.
Her parents were resident of Delhi and the marriage was performed at Delhi.
Thereafter, the husband R 2 filed petition in Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR number 34 of 1993 on the ground that the allegations made in the companyplaint were false and mala fide and numberpart of the cause of action for investigation or trial of an offence arose within Delhi.
Thereafter, impugned FIR number 34 dated 23rd January, 1992 was lodged in which she has made material improvements.
Within that time also, threats by her husband companytinued.
On 12th October, 1993, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, the High Court held since the return of stridhan and accounting thereof is being sought in Delhi, the Courts at Delhi will have the jurisdiction to try the case.
Subsequently, on 23rd January, 1993, the impugned FIR number 34 of 1993 under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. for the alleged occurrence dated 9th December, 1990 at Patiala was lodged at Police Station, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
That order is challenged before us in this appeal by special leave.
As against this, learned companynsel for the Respondent submitted that the alleged offence took place at Patiala and that the articles given at the time of marriage were returned at Patiala on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 19th January 1992 lodged by the appellant at Patiala.
Various other statements are made in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent husband and also in rejoinder filed by the appellant.
The Court further clarified that the alleged companypromise arrived at between the parties on 19.1.1992 cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR because it would depend upon the evidence which may be led by the parties with regard to the articles returned by the in laws.
On 30th April, 1992, a companyplaint was lodged against her husband in the Women Cell, Delhi.
He further submitted that as husband has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of companyjugal rights, as a companynter blast appellant filed companyplaint to the DCP Women Crime Cell , Delhi on 10th June, 1992 in which she never stated that she had number received back all dowry articles or her Stridhan.
The appellant wife companytends that she had married to Rajinder Singh Respondent number 2 on December 9, 1990.
