Full Text
Translation output
$-40 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1697/2013
MOHD. JUNAID Petitioner
Through Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Adv.
CRL.M.C. 1697/2013
MOHD. JUNAID Petitioner
Through Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Adv.
VERSUS
TI-IE STATE & ANR ^ Respondent
Through Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State Ok CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
30.04.2013 Bythis petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., thepetitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.109/2013 registered against him under Sections
406/498A/34 IPG at PS Khyala.
Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations levelled bythe complainant in the FIR aretaken to be
^ correct no case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG is made out against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the earlier case lodged by the complainant under Section
366/376 IPG on 12.8.2010 and the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant after a gap of 15 months.
2013:DHC:7343 r'
:2—
Counsel also submits that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant is itself illegal and void in the eyes of law as the alleged marriage did not take place with the free consent of both the parties and also that the complainant hadnottaken divorce from her earlier husband.
Counsel also submits that the complainant herself is not aware as to when she was thrown out of the matrimonial home as she never joined the company of the husband in her matrimonial home. Counsel further submits that all vague and vicious allegations have been levelled bythe complainant attributing harassment atthehands ofthepetitioner and his family members.
Counsel also submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the earlier FIR registered under Sections 366/376 IPC and in the present
FIRare contradictory. Counsel further submits that as per her own case, the complainant had resided in the rented accommodation for a period of one month and that would itself imply that the family members of the petitioner were not there in the rented accommodation and, therefore, allegations levelled by the complainant against the family members of the petitioner are ex facie false.
The present petition is strongly opposed by learned APP. He submits that thecomplainant has already filed aNikahanama before theI.O. which is duly signed by the Kazi and, therefore, the said Nikahanama clearly enunciates solemnizing of the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant according to Muslim rights and ceremonies.
The complainant is present in Court. Shestates that the petitioner has already applied for his bail and his bail application is still pending in the
Sessions Court. She submits that before the Sessions Court the petitioner had agreed to take the complainant to the matrimonial home.
Learned APP submits that at this stage the Court is only to appreciate whether FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable office on the part of the petitioner and mustnot go beyond that.
Learned APP also submits that the petitioner has already taken the advantage of the statement of the complainant in the earlier FIR registered under Sections 376/366 IPC and it is only because of the complainant turning hostile, that he took advantage of an order being passed in his favour.
On questioning, learned APP submits that in view of thepresent stand taken by the petitioner, the State is contemplating to challenge the said order of acquittal. Counsel submits that instructions in this regard shall be given to the State for taking necessary steps to challenge the said order of acquittal in the hght ofthe stand now being taken by the petitioner.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and also the complainant, present in court today. From the bare perusal of the FIR on record and the averments made in the present petition, I am of a considered view that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. The Petitioner's version appears to be tainted and concocted.
The law is well settled that the principles under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of any proceeding should beapplied with due care depending upon the circumstances of each case, to avoid miscarriage ofjustice and abuse of the process of law. Seeing the facts of the present case, it is noticeable that the petitioner married the complainant after an FIR was lodged against him under Section 376 IPG and when the lower court acquitted the petitioner in the said proceeding on the pretext that hewould take care ofthe complainant as his legally wedded wife as per muslim rights, the petitioner gave a false assurance to keep the complainant in her matrimonial home but after being acquitted he backlashed and deserted the complainant onbaseless issues.
A person who approaches the court for grant of relief, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/ essential facts which may have a bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. If he is found guilty of dodging the material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream ofjustice, the court not only has a right but a duty to deny such a relief A litigant, who approaches the court, mustcome with unsoiled hands.
In the background of the above discussion, this court does not deem it fit to quash the present proceedings.
There is no meritin the present petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed . It is ordered accordingly.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
APRIL 30,2013 aj
Through Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State Ok CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
30.04.2013 Bythis petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., thepetitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.109/2013 registered against him under Sections
406/498A/34 IPG at PS Khyala.
Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations levelled bythe complainant in the FIR aretaken to be
^ correct no case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG is made out against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the earlier case lodged by the complainant under Section
366/376 IPG on 12.8.2010 and the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant after a gap of 15 months.
2013:DHC:7343 r'
:2—
Counsel also submits that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant is itself illegal and void in the eyes of law as the alleged marriage did not take place with the free consent of both the parties and also that the complainant hadnottaken divorce from her earlier husband.
Counsel also submits that the complainant herself is not aware as to when she was thrown out of the matrimonial home as she never joined the company of the husband in her matrimonial home. Counsel further submits that all vague and vicious allegations have been levelled bythe complainant attributing harassment atthehands ofthepetitioner and his family members.
Counsel also submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the earlier FIR registered under Sections 366/376 IPC and in the present
FIRare contradictory. Counsel further submits that as per her own case, the complainant had resided in the rented accommodation for a period of one month and that would itself imply that the family members of the petitioner were not there in the rented accommodation and, therefore, allegations levelled by the complainant against the family members of the petitioner are ex facie false.
The present petition is strongly opposed by learned APP. He submits that thecomplainant has already filed aNikahanama before theI.O. which is duly signed by the Kazi and, therefore, the said Nikahanama clearly enunciates solemnizing of the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant according to Muslim rights and ceremonies.
The complainant is present in Court. Shestates that the petitioner has already applied for his bail and his bail application is still pending in the
Sessions Court. She submits that before the Sessions Court the petitioner had agreed to take the complainant to the matrimonial home.
Learned APP submits that at this stage the Court is only to appreciate whether FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable office on the part of the petitioner and mustnot go beyond that.
Learned APP also submits that the petitioner has already taken the advantage of the statement of the complainant in the earlier FIR registered under Sections 376/366 IPC and it is only because of the complainant turning hostile, that he took advantage of an order being passed in his favour.
On questioning, learned APP submits that in view of thepresent stand taken by the petitioner, the State is contemplating to challenge the said order of acquittal. Counsel submits that instructions in this regard shall be given to the State for taking necessary steps to challenge the said order of acquittal in the hght ofthe stand now being taken by the petitioner.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and also the complainant, present in court today. From the bare perusal of the FIR on record and the averments made in the present petition, I am of a considered view that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. The Petitioner's version appears to be tainted and concocted.
The law is well settled that the principles under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of any proceeding should beapplied with due care depending upon the circumstances of each case, to avoid miscarriage ofjustice and abuse of the process of law. Seeing the facts of the present case, it is noticeable that the petitioner married the complainant after an FIR was lodged against him under Section 376 IPG and when the lower court acquitted the petitioner in the said proceeding on the pretext that hewould take care ofthe complainant as his legally wedded wife as per muslim rights, the petitioner gave a false assurance to keep the complainant in her matrimonial home but after being acquitted he backlashed and deserted the complainant onbaseless issues.
A person who approaches the court for grant of relief, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/ essential facts which may have a bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. If he is found guilty of dodging the material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream ofjustice, the court not only has a right but a duty to deny such a relief A litigant, who approaches the court, mustcome with unsoiled hands.
In the background of the above discussion, this court does not deem it fit to quash the present proceedings.
There is no meritin the present petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed . It is ordered accordingly.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
APRIL 30,2013 aj
JUDGMENT