Pooja Sharma vs State And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 858 Del

                                         UNREPORTED
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     DATE OF DECISION: March 17, 2009

+                        W.P.(CRL.) 314/2009



       MS. POOJA SHARMA                                   ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. R.N. Dubey, Advocate

                      versus

       STATE & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Addl. Standing
                                       Counsel for the State

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


:      REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, directing

the respondent No.2 to provide appropriate security to the life of the petitioner,

and that her husband and in-laws and also seeks for the issuance of a direction

to the respondent No.2 and the officials of the respondent No.2 not to harass or

arrest the husband of the petitioner in any false criminal case in respect of the

abduction or kidnapping of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner's case as set out in the petition is that on 31.01.2009, the

petitioner married one Sanjay Kumar Sharma at the Arya Samaj Mandir. On

her bringing this fact to the notice of her relatives and parents, they threatened

to lodge a First Information Report against her husband and other in-laws as

also against the petitioner and also extended threats to the petitioner.

3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State by this Court and in the

meanwhile, the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned, viz.,

Police Station Mansarover Park, Delhi was directed to ensure that no harm or

injury of any nature was caused to the petitioner.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, the Additional Standing Counsel for the State

has submitted status report in Court today. I have also heard the submissions

made by Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. R.N.

Dubey, Advocate, the counsel for the petitioner.

5. It emerges from the status report filed by the State that the Station

House Officer upon enquiry found that the petitioner Pooja Sharma is the niece

of Smt. Kalpana, wife of Shri Sanjay Sharma, who is her real aunt (Mausi) and

that the petitioner has been residing with Shri Sanjay Sharma and his wife

Kalpana for the last six months at their residence at 1/1560, Mansarover Park,

Shahadra, Delhi. On 31st January, 2009, the petitioner without informing

anyone married Shri Sanjay Sharma at Arya Samaj Mandir. The disclosure of

the marriage was subsequently made to Smt. Kalpana, wife of Shri Sanjay

Sharma on 12th March, 2009.

6. It also emerges from the status report and from the statement of Smt.

Kalpana, which was recorded on 13th March, 2009 by the SHO, Mansarover

Park that Smt. Kalpana was married to Sanjay Sharma five years back and they

have a three year old daughter from their wedlock. The petitioner is the

daughter of the elder sister of Kalpana, namely, Usha Sharma. According to

the status report submitted by the SHO to this Court, however, no written

complaint has been filed by anyone, including the petitioner, with regard to

any dispute or threat from any quarter. Sanjay Sharma in his statement has

also stated that no threat has been extended by anyone to the petitioner.

7. After hearing the parties and going through the status report submitted

by the respondents No.1 and 2, I am of the considered opinion that the present

writ petition has been filed malafide with the ulterior motive of obtaining pre-

arrest orders from this Court without disclosing the material facts, since the

petitioner was well aware of the fact that she had entered into a marriage with

the husband of her real maternal aunt (Mausi), which marriage was a nullity in

the eyes of law. That the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts is

evident from the fact that there is not a whisper in her writ petition about the

fact that she had married a man who was already the legally wedded husband

of another woman and the father of a three year old child. The law, it is well

settled, will not provide relief to those who are guilty of flouting it. The

petitioner, obviously on being threatened by her parents and other relatives for

having ventured into the matrimonial terrain of another woman and that too a

woman who is her real maternal aunt, and being an educated person well aware

of the consequences, has sought to set into motion the writ jurisdiction of this

Court to enable her and her husband (who may be guilty of bigamy), to get

away with the consequences. It is another matter that neither the parents nor

the relatives have resorted to the filing of a complaint against the petitioner and

the aforesaid Sanjay Sharma.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition. The same is

accordingly dismissed.

W.P.(Crl.) 314/2009 stands disposed of accordingly.

REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

MARCH 17, 2009 km