Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No.1349/2015 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: April 08, 2015
Date of Decision: April 08, 2015
CRL.M.C. 1349/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.4952-4953/2015
ANKUR BASSI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma & Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocates
ANKUR BASSI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma & Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
MONIKA MALHOTRA ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
In this petition, quashing of complaint under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the instant complaint has been lodged after the period leaving the matrimonial house and that respondent was already married and during subsistence of the earlier marriage, the instant marriage was performed and a petition for annulment of this marriage is already pending. It is submitted that no case for domestic violence is made out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the complaint (Annexure-P-3), this
Court finds that it is quite apparent that petitioner had induced respondent
2015:DHC:3185 Crl.M.C.No.1349/2015 Page 2 to marry him even during the subsistence of his first marriage and it is also apparent that parties were in live-in-relationship and allegations of petitioner subjecting respondent to cruelty do exists in the complaint in question.
In the considered opinion of this Court, no case for quashing of
FIR in question is made out.
With aforesaid observations, this petition and applications are accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 08, 2015 r 2015:DHC:3185
In this petition, quashing of complaint under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is sought on merits.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the instant complaint has been lodged after the period leaving the matrimonial house and that respondent was already married and during subsistence of the earlier marriage, the instant marriage was performed and a petition for annulment of this marriage is already pending. It is submitted that no case for domestic violence is made out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the complaint (Annexure-P-3), this
Court finds that it is quite apparent that petitioner had induced respondent
2015:DHC:3185 Crl.M.C.No.1349/2015 Page 2 to marry him even during the subsistence of his first marriage and it is also apparent that parties were in live-in-relationship and allegations of petitioner subjecting respondent to cruelty do exists in the complaint in question.
In the considered opinion of this Court, no case for quashing of
FIR in question is made out.
With aforesaid observations, this petition and applications are accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 08, 2015 r 2015:DHC:3185