RAKESH KUMAR & ANR. vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

$~85
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22.01.2024

+ CRL.M.C. 481/2024
RAKESH KUMAR & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Abhimanyu Yadav, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP with ASI Vinod Kumar.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 1919/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 481/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1918/2024
2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking quashing of FIR No. 744/2021 registered at Police Station: Mehrauli, Delhi under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’) along with all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the above FIR has been registered on the false and malicious complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein, who claims herself to be the wife of the petitioner no.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier, the respondent no.2 had filed a complaint on the basis of which FIR No.216/2019 was registered against the petitioner no.1 and his family members at Police Station: Pillu Khera, District Jind, Haryana under Sections 323/506/34 of IPC. He submits that the respondent no.2 had also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., being MNT 676/2019, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Camp Court, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2020.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the abovementioned FIR, that is, FIR No.216/2019, the petitioner no.1 was acquitted vide the judgment and order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, District Jind, Haryana. He submits that it is only thereafter that the respondent no.2 again, with malicious intent, filed a complaint on the basis of which the subject FIR has been registered. He submits that the present FIR being an abuse of the process of law deserves to be quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even as per the allegations made by the respondent no.2 in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the entire cause of action, if any, had taken place at Jind, Haryana and, therefore, there would be lack of territorial jurisdiction as far as the subject FIR is concerned.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. In my view, these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered at the present stage. Based on the investigation, the prosecution has already filed a chargesheet under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. All the contentions that are now being raised before this Court can also be raised before the learned Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge.
9. Prima facie, it also appears that pursuant to the registration of the FIR No.216/2019 and a petition under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. filed by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 claimed that the petitioners approached the respondent no.2 for an amicable settlement and based thereon, took some jewellery items and also demanded cash from the respondent no.2. It is on the basis of these allegations which are subsequent to the FIR No. 216/2019 and the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that the subject FIR, that is, FIR No.744/2021 has been registered. They also appear to be prima facie supported from the conduct of the respondent no. 2 in the above two proceedings. Whether the allegations made by the respondent no.2 are true or have been maliciously made, is a matter of fact which will need appreciation of evidence adduced in this regard.
10. As far as the lack of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it has been alleged by the prosecution that post the handing over of the jewellery items by the victim to the petitioner no 1, petitioner no. 2 had also demanded dowry. These allegations need to be considered by the learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and on appreciating the evidence.
11. In the State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1) 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases; and that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
12. This Court at this stage cannot venture to and meticulously analyse each and every material produced before it in a summary manner to find out as to whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the charges or not. The petitioners would have sufficient opportunity to place their entire case before the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charge since the chargesheet has already been filed.
13. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of as infructuous.
14. It is made clear that any observation made in the present order is for deciding the present petition and shall not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court during the proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 744/2021 registered at Police Station: Mehrauli, Delhi.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 22, 2024/Arya/AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

CRL.M.C. 481/2024 Page 1 of 4