Delhi High Court
B.L. Bhartiya vs State & Anr. on 18 November, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
11.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 98/2007 and Crl.M.A. No. 323/2007 (stay)
B.L. BHARTIYA ..... Petitioner
Through: MrS. Urmila Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
ORDER
% 18.11.2009
Judgment (ORAL)
No one has appeared for Respondent No. 2 even on third call.
It is already 2.15 pm. No one was present for the respondent No.
2 on the last two dates of hearing. Heard.
This a petition for quashing the order dated 5.10.06 whereby
the petitioner was summoned for the offence punishable under
sections 416, 417, 418, 419 and 420 of IPC. In nutshell, the case
of the complainant Dr. Om Prakash Maurya, as disclosed in the
complaint, is that one Ram Pal Singh (accused no. 3 in the
complaint) proposed marriage of his son Ashutosh Kumar with one
Aparna, daughter of Mrs. Shakuntala Jayant (accused No. 1 in the
complaint), and the girl was shown to him in the house of the
father of Smt. Shakuntala Jayant. The marriage of Aparna with
Ashutosh Kumar was solemnized on 6th November, 2003. After
marriage it was discovered that in fact Aparna was a patient of
Schizophrenia. This came to be revealed only when Aparna was
taken to Dr. Bhargava's Clinic in Munirka on 27.12.2003 and there
she disclosed to the doctor that she has been suffering from
Schizophrenia for the last about 5-6 years. It has also been alleged
in the complaint that after marriage, when the complainant and his
family members found Aparna behaving violently, they took up the
matter with Smt. Shakuntala Jayant, her brother Abhisar and
middleman Sh. R.P. Singh, her relatives Shri Dinesh Kumar and
Shri B.L. Bhartiya (petitioners before this court), to let them know
about such a rude behavior on the part of Aparna and all these
persons told them that there was nothing wrong with Aparna
except that she had depression.
2. This is not the case of the complainant anywhere in the
complaint that petitioner B.L. Bhartiya had told him, at any point
of time before the marriage of Aparna with his son, that she had
no problem or that she was having only depression. There is no
allegation in the complaint that the petitioner had even met the
complainant at any point of time before the marriage of his son
with Aparna and had played any role in marriage of Aparna with
the son of the complainant. In order to constitute cheating, the
complainant is require to allege and prove a dishonest mis
representation or dishonest cancellation on the part of the
petitioner before the marriage of Aparna was solemnized with his
son. If, after solemnization of marriage, the petitioner represented
to the complainant that Aparna was not having any problem other
than depression, it would not constitute cheating because that
would be statement after the alleged cheating had already been
committed by getting Aparna married to the son of the
complainant. If the petitioner, at some point of time after the
marriage, told the complainant that Aparna had no problem other
than depression, that by itself does not show that he was a party to
a criminal conspiracy pursuant to which the complainant / or his
son was cheated by solemnizing the marriage of Aparna with the
son of the complainant. Moreover, being only a neighbour, the
petitioner would necessarily not be aware of the disease from
which Aparna was suffering. Therefore, the allegations made in
the complaint, even if taken on their face value, do not make out
any case of cheating against the petitioner.
3. Though in his statement before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, at the time of preliminary evidence, the complainant
made a bald allegation that Smt. Shakuntala, in union of her son
Abhisar, her relative Dinesh Kumar and B.L. Bhartiya hatched a
conspiracy of fraudulently marrying Aparna, a mentally disordered
woman with his son, no criminal proceeding could have been
initiated against the petitioner on such a bald allegation when
there was no foundation for making such an allegation, in the
criminal complaint filed in the court. Moreover, the complaint
does not allege any such fact as would show the petitioner to be a
party to the alleged conspiracy.
4. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise
power under it, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
were set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; AIR 1992 SC 604.
The illustrative categories indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
included as following:
"(1) where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused;
(2) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence any make out a case against the accused.
In the present case, the complaint even if taken as absolutely
true, does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence by the
petitioner. Hence, the case is squarely covered by the above
referred decision.
5. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, criminal
complaint case titled as "Dr. Om Prakash Maurya vs. Smt.
Shakuntala Jayant and Others", to the extent it pertains to the
petitioner Mr. B.L. Bhartiya, is quashed. However, quashing of the
proceedings qua the petitioner would not affect continuance of the
same against the other accused persons.
With these orders, Crl. M.C. No. 98/2007 & Crl. M.A.
323/2007 stand disposed of.
V.K. JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 18, 2009
acm
