Tarun Sarkar & Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. This is a petition seeking quashing of proceedings in DV Case NO. 6479/2020 filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners.

2. The brief factual background of the matter is that the petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are parents-in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law.

3. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got married on 03.02.2020. The relationship turned sour within two months of the marriage. In June 2020, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 parted ways and started living separately. On 31.08.2020, the respondent No.2 made a complaint before the CAW Cell, Delhi Cantonment alleging commission of offences under Sections 307/354/323/420/498-A/511/406/120-B/34 IPC.

4. On 09.11.2020, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter to CAW cell indicating that the issues between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have been resolved and they are willing to stay together. In fact, the respondent No.2 stated that her complaint was false and wanted to close the file and take no action on her complaint. The said letter was followed by another letter dated 13.11.2020 reiterating respondent No.2’s request to close her complaint. The letter also states that the issues have been resolved and respondent No.2 will stay happily with her husband. Thereafter, I have been taken through documents to show that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were trying to make their marriage work, were going out for vacations at different hotels and spending time together. However, despite the best efforts by both the parties, the relationships between them could not be restored, as a result of which, respondent No.2 wrote a letter dated 03.02.2021 and thereafter another letter of 23.02.2021. The letter of 03.02.2021 is not on record, however, a copy was handed over in court. The letter of 03.02.2021 reads as under: “To ACP-WAC New Delhi Delhi Cantt. Subject:- Reopen my earlier complaint which I did on 31/08/20. Date: 03/02/21 ARORA Respected Ma‟am/Sir, I „Dr Supriya Biswas‟ filed a complaint against my Husband & my In-laws. I closed my case on the grounds that we will stay together. He will come to take me home from my parental home. On 13/11/20. From that day He didn‟t come to take me. I insisted of coming home in U.K (Shakti farm) by my own. He denied on that also. On 02/02/21 he came and was sitting in car but didn‟t come inside. Still I went with him to save our married life and as today is our anniversary (03/02/21). Instead of going Noida (home) he took me to hotel (gurgaon). On reaching there he said he will drop me back at my paternal home. I tried to save my marriage in every way. But he repeated this every time. And he is insisting me on withdrawing the Domestic Violence case which is currently going in Patiala House. Hence, I want to reopen my complaint for appropriate action. I please to look after my case. My earlier Investigating Officer was SI Yashweer Singh. Signed Tarun Sarkar 03/2/2021 (Husband) Dr Supriya Biswas Add.-1501, Hibiscus Tower K-249/2, Mahipalpur Paramount Floral Villa, Extension, New Delhi – 37 Sector-137, Noida 9720910548 U.P. – 201305 Date: 03/02/21” 8130694963”

5. The letter of 23.02.2021 is on record and is reproduced as under: “To ACP-WAC Delhi Cant Delhi Subject:- Today, I am present regarding to reopen of my complaint against my husband & in-laws. Respected Sir, Today I am present on 23/2/2021, against my inin complaint on my husband & in-laws. My husband‟s job is in gurgaon & my clinic is in mahipalpur. My husband currently staying on rented home in Noida. Where I am saying due to ease of both we should shift to nearby both of our work place. I want my streedhan to be given back to me which is with my in-laws. They want me to shift my clinic which currently I don‟t want to because of this covid situation & economic crisis. Further I want to take my complaint for further process. Stamped as Documents Released By SWD. Delhi Police Under RTI Act-2005 Signed 23/2/2021 Dr Supriya Biswas K-249, 2, Mahipalpur extension New Delhi – 110037.” ARORA

6. It is stated by Mr Dahiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that once the respondent No.2 has made a statement that her complaint is false and has withdrawn her complaint, the said complaint has come to an end. The original complaint dated 31.08.2020 cannot be revived in view of her subsequent letters dated 03.02.2021 and 23.02.2021, especially when she has stated on 09.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 that her issues have been resolved and she wanted to close the complaints.

7. Mr Dahiya further states that after withdrawing the complaint, the respondent No. 2 has enjoyed matrimonial bliss with petitioner No.1 and even assuming there was any merit in her complaint on 31.08.2020, the same has been condoned/waived by respondent No.2. The list of dates when the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have lived together are as under: S No. Dates of stay Name of Hotel 25-26.11.2020 (Complainant’s birthday) Park Plaza, Gurgaon 5th to 8th December, 2020 Holiday Inn, Mayur Vihar 16th to 17th December, 2020 Crowne Plaza, Okhala 26th to 27th December, 2020 Crowne Plaza, Greater Noida 31st December 2020 to 1st January, 2021 Crowne Plaza, Okhala 2nd February 2021 to 3rd February, 2021 (Marriage anniversary celebration) Lemon Tree, Gurgaon 11th – 12th February (Valentine’s day celebration) Ramada hotel, Neemrana 24th – 25th February Ibis Aerocity, Delhi 26th – 27th February The Umrao, Mahipalpur 28th February (Relative’s ENGAGEMENT) Community Hall, Lado Sarai ARORA

8. There is no denial of this chart by respondent No.2 in her reply.

9. On the other hand Mr Sharma, learned counsel has stated that the withdrawal statements made on 09.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 to CAW cell were confidential information and could not have been placed before this Court. He relies on Section 81-B, 70 and 75 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. He further states that statements made to CAW cell are statements in Conciliatory Proceedings and cannot be relied upon. He further states that these statements were made to CAW Cell only with a view to save marriage of respondent No. 2 with petitioner No.1 and cannot be viewed from any other angle. The statement also says that these statements should not be provided to any of the petitioners under RTI.

10. Mr Dahiya states that this is incorrect as both the statements of 09.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 bears the signatures of petitioner No.1, he was privy to the said letters and hence, they were statements made with mutual trust and faith.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. I was initially of the view that the matter should have been settled between the parties and for that reason, I had requested Mr Peswani, learned counsel for the State to personally intervene in the matter and have a dialogue with the parties. He has rendered his able assistance and interacted with the parties at considerable length of time but the parties could not reach at an amicable settlement.

13. As regards the merits of the case, pursuant to the letters dated 09.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 stating that the issues between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have been resolved, the parties again lived together on ARORA numerous occasions as husband and wife during the months of November 2020- February 2021.

14. The respondent No.2 withdrew her complaint dated 31.08.2020 before the CAW cell herself, without any pressure and with her consent. There is also no document on record to show that after the above dates, i.e from 25.11.2020 till 28.02.2021 or after the letters closing her complaint, there was any act of cruelty or domestic violence committed by the petitioners upon respondent No.2.

15. In the present case, the respondent No.2 by her explicit and implicit acts of:a. writing letters dated 09.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 withdrawing her complaints and b. residing with the petitioner as husband and wife has condoned/waived the acts of cruelty.