TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – QUASHING OF FIR / PRC – MATRIMONIAL OFFENCES – S. 498-A, 307, 403 r/w 34 IPC – Ss. 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act – COMPLAINT ALLEGEDLY A “COUNTER-BLAST” – DISMISSAL OF DVC AND MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS – EFFECT –

CrPC, 1973 – Ss. 177, 178, 179, 482 – CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – Art. 226 – TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – QUASHING OF FIR / PRC – MATRIMONIAL OFFENCES – S. 498-A, 307, 403 r/w 34 IPC – Ss. 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act – COMPLAINT ALLEGEDLY A “COUNTER-BLAST” – DISMISSAL OF DVC AND MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS – EFFECT –

Writ petition under Art. 226/227 to declare registration and investigation in Crime No. 66/2013 (culminating in PRC No. 90/2014) as illegal and to quash the same – Petitioner-husband contended (i) complaint by wife (R-4) is a “counter-blast” to his earlier M.C. No. 12/2013 (restitution of conjugal rights) on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yadgiri, Karnataka; (ii) all alleged incidents occurred in Yadgir District and Bangalore (Karnataka), and there is no whisper of any incident at Ananthapuramu, so Ananthapur police had no territorial jurisdiction to register FIR or investigate; (iii) on similar allegations wife’s DVC No. 4/2014 before Special JMFC (Mobile)-cum-II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram was dismissed on 15-04-2014; and her maintenance claim in F.C.O.P. No. 207/2018 under S. 125 CrPC was dismissed on 21-12-2022 (Crl.R.C. No. 753/2023 pending) – hence continuation of PRC No. 90/2014 would be abuse of process.

State opposed; submitted that investigation disclosed prima facie material against accused for offences under Ss. 498-A, 307, 403 r/w S. 34 IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, charge-sheet filed and PRC taken on file; all defences raised by petitioner are matters for trial.

Held, no ground made out to quash criminal proceedings:

1. “Counter-blast” plea and truth of allegations are for trial – Whether complaint is a counter-blast to RCR proceedings, whether allegations are false, baseless, exaggerated, or invented – all are matters to be tested by evidence. At the quashing stage, Court is not concerned with truth or otherwise of allegations; that is for the trial Court to decide. Reliance placed on J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain, AIR 1986 SC 833, wherein the Supreme Court held that truth of allegations is to be gone into at trial and inherent/extraordinary powers should not be used to stifle prosecution at threshold merely on such contests. (Paras 6, 9–10, 11, 13–14)

2. Territorial jurisdiction – investigation vs. trial – Petitioner’s core plea that all incidents occurred in Karnataka and therefore Ananthapur police/Magistrate had no jurisdiction, held not a ground for quashment at this stage:

   • S. 177 CrPC embodies “ordinary rule” that offence shall be inquired into and tried by Court within whose local jurisdiction it is committed; Ss. 178, 179 carve out exceptions for offences committed partly in one place and partly in another, continuing offences, or where consequences of criminal act occur in another jurisdiction. Court referred to Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 384, explaining that where cruelty under S. 498-A IPC is committed at matrimonial home and wife takes shelter in parental home, Courts at parental home may also have jurisdiction as mental cruelty and its consequences persist there. (Paras 7, 11, 13)

   • Following Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 1999 SC 3596, it was reiterated that at the stage of investigation, territorial jurisdiction of the police station is not to be scrutinised in hyper-technical manner; S. 156(2) CrPC immunises police actions from being called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. If, after investigation, it appears that offence was committed outside jurisdiction, FIR can be forwarded to appropriate police station. This does not justify quashing FIR/charge-sheet at threshold. (Paras 7, 10)

   • In the present case, FIR was registered, investigation conducted, nine witnesses examined, some accused arrested and charge-sheet filed; PRC is now pending before competent Magistrate. The issue of exact territorial jurisdiction and the applicability of Ss. 177–179 CrPC, in the light of evidence and consequences of alleged cruelty, can be examined by trial Court; it is not a matter for interference under Art. 226 at pre-trial stage. (Paras 11, 13–14)

3. Effect of dismissal of DVC / maintenance proceedings – Dismissal of (i) DVC No. 4/2014 under Domestic Violence Act on 15-04-2014 and (ii) maintenance application in F.C.O.P. No. 207/2018 on 21-12-2022 (Crl.R.C. No. 753/2023 pending) does not automatically render criminal prosecution under Ss. 498-A, 307, 403 IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 DP Act an abuse of process or liable to be quashed. Matrimonial and maintenance proceedings are distinct; their outcome can be considered as part of evidence/defence at trial, but they do not by themselves extinguish criminal liability. (Paras 6, 12–13)

4. 498-A IPC – caution against misuse vs. protection of genuine cases – Court noticed Supreme Court’s observations in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, cautioning that allegations of harassment against distant relatives need careful scrutiny and that indiscriminate roping in of husband’s relations is common and courts must be extremely cautious. However, such caution does not translate into a blanket rule that complaints filed after a divorce notice or after matrimonial litigation are inherently mala fide. Pramod R.S. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 26, was referred to reject any proposition that every complaint filed after receipt of divorce notice loses significance; accepting such a blanket proposition would defeat the very object of S. 498-A IPC and DV Act. Each case must be examined on its own facts; present record discloses prima facie case, hence no ground for quashing. (Paras 8, 10–11, 13)

On overall consideration of record and precedents, held that all grounds raised by petitioner – counter-blast, lack of jurisdiction, dismissal of DVC and maintenance proceedings – are matters of defence to be urged and adjudicated before trial Court. No case made out for exercising writ / inherent jurisdiction to quash PRC No. 90/2014.

Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated; observations in the order confined to consideration of quashment and shall not influence trial on merits in PRC No. 90/2014. No order as to costs. (Paras 13–15)