Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th February, 2025
ALOK KUMAR DAS
S/o Sh. Shyama Charan Das R/o H. No. 264, Double Story, New Seelampur III, Welcome, Delhi - 110053 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Anurag Kumar and Mr.Rishabh
Singh, Advocates
JUDGMENT
(1) STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through its Standing Counsel, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi-110002.....Respondent No.1 (2) MS.
MAMTA w/o Sh. Praveen Rana d/o Late Vinay Kumar R/o H. No. 412/3, Nand Ram Mohalla, Gali No. 1, Brahmpuri, Delhl-110053.....Respondent No.2 (3) SH.
PRAVEEN RANA S/o Sh. Jai Singh Rana R/o 359-B, V.P.O. Khera Kalan Delhi – 110082.....Respondent No.3 Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JUDGMENT (oral)
1. The Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 131/2012, under Sections 498A/406/34/494 IPC, P.S. Jafrabad, Delhi and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, and also for initiating appropriate enquiry against Respondent No.2 for deposing falsely in the proceedings and thereby abusing the process of law.
2. Brief facts as stated in the Petition, are that the Petitioner/Alok Kumar Das being a school friend of Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, younger brother of Respondent No.2 used to visit their house till the year 2002-03. Respondent No.2 /Complainant, elder sister of Rajeev Ranjan, was about six years older to the Petitioner. It is claimed that till 2002, Respondent No.2 was unable to find a suitable match for marriage and she developed infatuation towards the Petitioner who was a young man and was working. The Petitioner, however, started ignoring Respondent No.2 since he considered her as his elder sister.
3. After few months, in the year 2002-03 she started pressurizing the Petitioner and his family for getting them married. Being in a state of shock, the family of the Petitioner and the Petitioner ignored these inappropriate demands of Respondent No.2 and refused to succumb to her pressure tactics. The Respondent No.2 then started asserting that she had got married to the Petitioner on 20.05.2002 on the basis of false and fabricated affidavits.
4. The true facts are that the Petitioner did not see her during the said period as he was busy in the preparation of the marriage of his sister which was solemnized on 22.05.2002, and was attended by the Respondent No.2 and her family members.
5. Thereafter, on 27.05.2003 Respondent No.2 forcibly came to the house of the Petitioner and created a scene and refused to leave unless the Petitioner agreed to marry her. She started screaming in the neighborhood. Sh. Shyama Charan Dass, father of the Petitioner, lodged a non-cognizable Complaint dated 28.05.2003 at P.S. Welcome, Delhi against the illegal activities of Respondent No.2 and also informed the Police about the dangerous and defamatory activities of Respondent No.2.
6. In order to avoid further hassles, Legal Notice dated 29.05.2003 was served upon the Respondent and her family members by the Petitioner through his counsel, telling Respondent No.2 to refrain from her illegal and unwanted activities.
7. A Reply dated 06.06.2003 was given by Respondent No.2 wherein it was stated that there was no intimacy of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner and definitely the question of marriage in future, does not arise. It also mentioned that Respondent No.2 was not in India and no further problem would be created by her.
8. On 03.08.2003, Petitioner was summoned at P.S. Usmanpur, Delhi on a Complaint filed by the Respondent. He as well as Respondent No.2 gave their statement to the police officials and it was concluded that no case was made out.
9. After Respondent No.2 did not succeed in her designs, she filed a Complaint in CAW Cell, Seelampur, Delhi under Section 498A IPC against the Petitioner who was summoned by CAW Cell and then he came to know that Respondent No.2 was claiming to have got married to the Petitioner in May, 2002.
10. The Petitioner then filed Civil Suit No.27/2003 for Declaration that he was single and unmarried and to permanently restrain Respondent No.2 from claiming herself to be the wife of the Petitioner. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 05.09.2005. However, RCA No.299/2005 was preferred by Respondent No.2 before learned ADJ who allowed the Appeal on 06.10.2005 and reversed the judgment of learned Civil Judge. Petitioner then preferred RSA No.299/2006 before this Court but unfortunately that also got dismissed on 22.07.2006.
11. The Petitioner has asserted that since he was unmarried, he got married to Kumari Meena on 01.02.2008 according to Hindu Customs and Rites and one son was born from their wedlock on 06.02.2009.
12. The Respondent No. 2 being successful in the Appeal, filed a Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C in Mahila Court, Delhi against the Petitioner for claiming maintenance.
13. Thereafter, FIR No.131/2012 was registered under Section 498A/406/34/494 IPC, P.S. Jafrabad, on 02.04.2012 pursuant to the Order dated 15.05.2012 of the learned M.M, Delhi in a Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and an Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the Respondent No.2. Chargesheet has also been submitted against the Petitioner, though his family members have not been Charge sheeted as no offence was made out against them.
14. While all this litigation was pending, Respondent No.2 got married to Respondent No.3 on 06.04.2015 according to Hindu Customs and Rites in Arya Samaj Mandir. She was represented by Respondent No.3, Sh. Praveen Rana who was well aware that Respondent No.2 was claiming to be married to the Petitioner. However, adopting the same modus operandi, she got a FIR No.525/2015 under Section 498A/323/34 IPC, P.S. Subzi Mandi registered against Respondent No.3 and his family members.
15. Respondent No.3 filed a Petition under Section 11 read with Section 5(1) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Tis Hazari Courts for declaring their marriage as a nullity on the sole ground that he subsequently came to know that Respondent No.2 was allegedly married to the Petitioner. It is claimed that Respondent No.3 had been representing Respondent No.2 in her litigations and the malice in making the aforesaid averments is clear on the part of both Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3.
16. Respondent No.2 filed her Written Statement on 23.10.2015 wherein she admitted that she was wife of Respondent No.3 and prayed that the Petition be dismissed.
17. The Petitioner has sought the quashing of FIR No. No.131/2012, P.S. Jafrabad and the proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the impugned FIR has been filed by Respondent No.2 only to harass the Petitioner since he and his family members have declined to accept the illogical demands of the Respondent No.2. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would be gross miscarriage of justice despite the malicious acts of Respondent No.2 clearly discernible from her conduct. The Respondent No.2 in fact, has trapped the Petitioner in false acts with the knowledge of law and its consequences. The operation of Section 494 IPC only commences if the alleged previous marriage between the parties has been solemnized. However, in the present case there is no evidence of marriage of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner. The Complaints have been filed only with the sole objective of extorting the money from the Petitioner.
18. Reliance has been placed on Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 1965 SC 1564 wherein it has been observed that solemnization means to celebrate or perform marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form. For the purpose of Section 17 of the Act the marriage to which Section 494 IPC applies, should have been a proper marriage celebrated according to proper ceremonies.
19. It is, therefore, submitted that FIR No.131/2012, P.S. Jafrabad and consequential proceedings be quashed with a further direction to hold enquiry into the conduct of Respondent No.2.
20. The State in its Status Report has submitted that on the Complaint of Respondent No.2, FIR No.131/2012 has been registered under Section 498A/406/34/494 IPC against the Petitioner and his family members. In the course of investigations, the Petitioner was formally arrested and was granted Anticipatory Bail. After the investigations, the Chargesheet already stands filed in the Court.
21. Submissions Heard and record perused.
22. Admittedly, FIR No.131/2012 under Section 498A/406/34/494 IPC has been registered against the Petitioner and the Chargesheet has also been filed against the Petitioner. The only ground on which quashing of FIR has been sought is that Petitioner never got married to the Respondent No.2 and therefore, invocation of Section 498A and 494 IPC does not arise.
23. However, the Petitioner had filed a civil Suit for Declaration that he was a bachelor and is not married to Respondent No.2. Though the Suit got decreed by learned Senior Civil Judge, but in the First Appeal the Order was set aside and was upheld in the Second Appeal.
24. It had been categorically observed in the said judgment by learned ADJ that there were letters Exh.PW-1/8 and 10 written by the Petitioner wherein he had admitted about their marriage on 20.05.2002 according to Hindu Customs and Rites. It had also come in evidence that the marriage was performed at the residence of maternal uncle of the Petitioner which was attended by their few friends. A Pandit has been admittedly organized who had performed the marriage ceremonies. Referring to these letters and the evidence, it was held that the Petitioner had got married to Respondent No.2 on 20.05.2002 and consequently, the Suit was rejected.
25. Admittedly, thereafter Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by Respondent No.2 to claim maintenance from the Petitioner.
26. There is enough prima facie evidence to hold that there was a valid marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. There are specific allegations made in the FIR that after their marriage Respondent No.2 lived with the family of the Petitioner for 15 days at one address and for 4-5 days at another address. She has asserted that Petitioner along with the family members made a dowry demand of Rs.[1] lakh from her, for which Charge Sheet has been filed under S.498A IPC. The merits of these allegations of course can be tested only during the trial.
27. The Petitioner had further claimed that since he was unmarried, he got married to Kumari Meena on 01.02.2008 and has been blessed with a son on 06.02.2009. Prima facie, it is reflected that the Petitioner admittedly, performed second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage which has apparently not been dissolved. Prima facie, the offence under Section 494 IPC is also established.
28. The Petitioner has referred to his subsequent marriage to Kumari Meena and the marriage of Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3, as a circumstance to claim that no valid marriage took place between him and respondent No.2. As has been detailed in the Petition itself, Respondent No.3 when slapped with an FIR under Section 498A/34 IPC barely within six months of his marriage to Respondent No.2 on 06.04.2015, filed a Petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting the marriage declared as a Nullity on account of the subsisting marriage of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner.
29. From the aforesaid discussion and the averments made in the FIR, the Chargesheet and the proceedings emanating therefrom, do not merit any quashing.
30. In so far as the enquiry against Respondent No.2 is proposed to be initiated, there is no material at this stage for directing any enquiry against Respondent No.2.
31. It is hereby clarified that the observations made herein are solely made in reference to the present Petition and are not an expression on the merits of the case, and the ld. MM.is at liberty to appreciate the facts and contentions at the time of Charge as well as during the trial.
32. Petition is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE FEBRUARY 07, 2025