Delhi High Court
Dr. Pankaj Sharma & Others vs State & Others on 23 July, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C.No.109/2007
% Date of decision : 23.07.2008
Dr. Pankaj Sharma & Others ....... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Kumar Kartikeya, Advocates.
Versus
State & others ......... Respondents
Through : Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
Mr.Mohd.Akram, Advocate for
respondents 2 & 3.
Respondent No.2, present in
person
CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.317/2005 under
Sections 342/323/498A/506 of IPC registered at Police Station Mandir
Marg on the complaint of respondent No.3.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that
divorce proceedings were pending between the petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.3 before the Additional District Judge where a settlement
was arrived at between them pursuant to which they had decided to
resolve all their differences and live together at E-139, Ashok Vihar,
Phase I, Delhi, which is the matrimonial home. The petitioner No.1 had
also represented and ensured that he will look after the respondent
No.3 and minor son, Bhavya. The respondent No.3 had also deposed
that she will cooperate with the petitioner No.1 for getting FIR
No.317/2005 under Sections 342/323/498A/506 of IPC registered at
Police Station Mandir Marg quashed from the High Court.
The petitioner No.1 contends that pursuant to settlement arrived
at between him and respondent No.3, FIR No.318/2005 registered at
Police Station Mandir Marg have already been quashed. Learned
counsel for petitioners, therefore, contends that since the respondent
No.3 stated before the Additional District Judge in the divorce
proceedings that the matter has been settled between her and petitioner
No.1, Dr.Pankaj Sharma, and she will cooperate for getting the FIR
No.317/2005 under Section 342/323/498A/506 of IPC quashed, the
said FIR should be quashed.
The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present. Respondent No.3
contended that pursuant to the compromise arrived at between her and
her husband, petitioner No.1, she started living with petitioner No.1. It
is also contended that earlier an amount was given by the petitioner
No.1 to her during the proceedings for grant of bail and after she
returned to matrimonial home, she was pressurized and maltreated and
beaten by the petitioner No.1 for return of that amount. She also
contended that she has been treated with cruelty by petitioners
consequent to which she had to leave the matrimonial home again and
now she is living with her mother. In the circumstances, she contends
that it will not be in the interest of justice if the FIR No.317/2005 under
Section 342/323/498A/506 of IPC is quashed in the present facts and
circumstances.
Petitioner No.1 is present and he denies the allegations made by
the respondent No.3 about petitioner No.1 beating her.
Learned counsel for petitioners contends that once the statement
has been given by the respondent No.3 that she will get the present FIR
No.317/2005 quashed and that another FIR No.318/2005 registered at
the instance of petitioner No.1 against the mother of the respondent
No.3, respondent No.2, has already been quashed, respondent No.3
should not be allowed to resile from her statement before the
matrimonial court and in the circumstances the said FIR No.317/2005
which was registered at her instance should be quashed.
This is not disputed that after the compromise arrived at between
respondent No.3 and the petitioner No.1, they started living together.
Respondent No.3 has also contended that on account of her ill-
treatment after they started living together, another FIR No.450/2007
under Sections 323/341/354/34 registered at P.S. Ashok Vihar, has
been registered against the petitioner No.1.
In the totality of facts and circumstances, it will not be in the
interest of justice to quash the FIR No.317/2005 under Section
342/323/498A/506 of IPC and as far as quashing of FIR No.318/2005
which was registered at the instance of petitioner No.1 against his
mother-in-law, respondent No.2, is concerned, it shall be for the
petitioner to take such steps, if available under law for revival of the
said FIR. However, on the ground that FIR registered against
respondent No.2, mother-in-law of the petitioner No.1 has been
quashed, no right is crystallized in favour of the petitioners to get the
FIR No.317/2005 under Section 342/323/498A/506 of IPC quashed in
the facts and circumstances.
Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances and in the
interest of justice, it will not be appropriate to quash the FIR
No.317/2005 under Section 342/323/498A/506 of IPC. The petition in
the facts and circumstances is without any merit and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
July 23, 2008 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'
