Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Monga & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 July, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. NO.395/2008
Date of Decision : 09.7.2009
VIJAY KUMAR MONGA & ANR. ...... Petitioners
Through: Nemo.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Pawan Behl, APP for the
State.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? No
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. I have heard the learned APP for the State and perused the
record.
2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR
No.170/2006 under Section 498 A/406 registered by P.S. Rajinder
Nagar, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings initiated on the
basis of the same and pending in the competent Court.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are
the parents of Vikas Monga. Vikas Monga is alleged have got
married to respondent no.2 Ms.Bharti Monga as per Hindu
Customs and ceremonies on 23.7.2000. From the wedlock one
female child named Akanksha Monga was born on 17.9.2001. It is
alleged in the complaint that after marriage most of the time, the
respondent no.2/complainant had been living and accompanying
her husband at different places and countries. It is stated that
from October, 2002 to January, 2004 she had accompanied her
husband to Muscat and thereafter from 26.7.2005 onwards she
along with Vikas Monga and their daughter Akanksha had migrated
to Canada.
4. It is alleged that in December, 2005 Vikas Monga had
expressed his desire to come back to India to attend the marriage of
his cousin brother. Respondent no.2 is stated to have expressed
her unwillingness to come to India on account of the fact that both
she and her husband had got the job recently.
5. It is further stated that since Vikas Monga was keen to attend
the marriage, he along with his daughter came to India.
Respondent no.2 Bharti Monga also applied for leave and
immediately thereafter, within a span of ten days, the respondent
no.2 also alleged to have landed in India. The petitioners alleged
that they and their son was completely taken by surprise on seeing
respondent no.2. Thereafter, respondent no.2 started making false
and frivolous complaints against the petitioners.
6. Curiously, it is stated that in June, 2006, Bharti Monga lodged
a report with CAW Cell at Paharganj, New Delhi on the basis of
which the aforesaid FIR under Section 498-A, 406/34 of IPC was
registered against Vikas Monga and his parents.
7. The petitioners are alleged to have obtained anticipatory bail
from the Court of Sh.Rajiv Mehra, ASJ on 05.10.2006. The case of
the petitioner is that the FIR and the consequent proceedings be
quashed on account of the fact that at no point of time they lived
with respondent/complaint who had mostly accompanied her
husband. Even as on date, the respondent no.2 is stated to have
migrated to Canada and settled there permanently yet on account
of having made a complaint by her that the petitioners who are old
persons they are put to great deal of harassment and hence have
prayed for quashing of FIR.
8. I have carefully perused the complaint and the documents
relied upon by the petitioner. The Apex Court in State of Haryana
& Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in para 106
has given seven illustrative contingencies in which an
FIR/complaint can be quashed. One of the grounds on which the
FIR/complaint can be quashed is that if from a plain reading of the
FIR or complaint no cognizable offence is made out.
9. In the present case, I have perused the FIR and there is a
definite allegation of subjecting the respondent no.2 to cruelty by
the husband and his parents on account of demand of dowry.
Merely because the respondent no.2 has migrated and settled in
Canada permanently or the fact that the respondent no.2 was most
of time was living with her husband away from the petitioners
cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. The allegation that the
petitioners were living separately and not with the complainant is a
disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the writ
jurisdiction. This can be decided only by the Trial Court after the
parties are permitted to adduce evidence. Therefore, I am of the
considered option that merely because of respondent no.2 is living
in Canada or that the respondent no.2 herself was living with her
husband on different occasions, it cannot be said that the FIR
deserves to be quashed.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered
opinion that the ground which has been set out by the petitioners
for quashing of the FIR is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
accordingly, the present petition is without any merit and the same
is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JULY 09, 2009
RN
