Radha Gupta vs State And Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 4707 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    W.P.(CRL) 519/2010

                                                   Decided on 06.10.2010

IN THE MATTER OF :

RADHA GUPTA                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through : Mr. Ruchir Batra, Adv.

                   versus

STATE AND ORS                                              ..... Respondents
                         Through : Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the
                         State with ASI Giriraj Singh, PS Badarpur.
                         Mr. Divya Darshan Sharma, Adv. for R-5 & 6
                         with respondents No.5 & 6 in person.


CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No
        be 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

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 226

of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of a

writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to investigate the

matter on her complaint, through Crime Branch/Special Staff or through any

other police station, except PS Badarpur. The petitioner has also sought

directions to the respondents No.1 & 3 to arrest the culprits in respect of the

allegations made by her of receiving threats to life and false implication in

other criminal cases.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.3.2010, when she

received a threatening call on her mobile phone, she made a complaint by

dialing no.100. It is averred in para 3 of the petitioner that on the same

date, i.e., on 24.3.2010, the husband of the petitioner, Sh.Krishna Murari,

was kept in illegal custody at PS Badarpur, where the respondent No.4 gave

beatings to her husband, but in the morning, he was released on the

condition that he would send the petitioner to the police station with

`.50,000/-. It is also claimed that on 30.3.2010 and 5.4.2010, the husband

of the petitioner lodged complaints with the Commissioner of Police, on

which no action was taken. Hence, the present petition.

3. A status report dated 21.7.2010 is handed over by the learned

ASC for the State. He submits that the petitioner has withheld material

information and approached this Court with unclean hands and on this

ground alone, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. He submits

that the petitioner has failed to reveal that there exists a dispute between

her hushand, Sh.Krishna Murari, and Sh.Bhoop Singh, respondent No. 6, his

son, Hemant, respondent No.5 & Smt.Meena, wife of respondent No.6, in

respect of which Shri Krishna Murari, was called by respondent No.4, ASI

Desh Raj, who is conducting an enquiry on the complaint of Smt. Meena, for

joining investigations. On 27.3.2010, statements of the complainant, Smt.

Meena and the husband of the petitioner were recorded, but thereafter Shri

Krishan Murari did not join the enquiry, despite repeated calls and instead he

filed a complaint against the respondent No.4, with the respondents No.1 &

2. It is further submitted that an inquiry was made into the complaint of the

petitioner and her husband by Inspector R.C. Jain, PS Badarpur, and it was

found that on 24.3.2010, a PCR call, vide DD No.42-B, was received in PS

Badarpur, which was in turn marked to HC Ram Raj for inquiry and

necessary action. HC Ram Raj met the petitioner at her residence, but she

did not make any statement and has not made any statement so far.

4. Learned APP for the State states that Sh.Krishna Murari is

seeking refuge under the garb of the present petition, got filed by him

through his wife and is falsely implicating the respondent No.4, while at the

same time, failing to join investigations on the basis of the complaint made

by Smt. Meena, wife of respondent No.6.

5. Though counsel for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid position,

he does not deny the fact of pendency of a dispute between the petitioner's

husband and the wife of respondent No.6.

6. Counsel for the respondents No.5 & 6 states that Smt.Meena had

complained that in the month of January 2010, she had handed over cash

and jewellery to the husband of the petitioner on an assurance given by him

that he would return the same, but he refused to do so and instead

threatened to implicate her falsely. As a result, she lodged a complaint

against him on 25.3.2010. He further submits that now Smt. Meena has

filed a complaint against the husband of the petitioner, under Section 200

Cr.P.C. which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket

Court. He asserts that the present petition is a gross abuse of the process

of Court and yet another attempt on the part of the petitioner and her

husband to harass his clients, knowing very well that Sh.Krishna Murari has

been named in the complaint filed by the wife of the respondent No.6.

7. A perusal of the present petition shows that apart from the

averments made in para 2 which relate to a telephone call received by the

petitioner on 24.3.2010, all the allegations in the petition mainly revolve

around the threat received by the husband of the petitioner, though he has

chosen not to implead himself as a co-petitioner in the petition. Even the

averment made in the prayer clause (i) is not only for relief to the petitioner

alone, but also to her husband. There is not a whisper in the present

petition with regard to the complaint made by Smt.Meena against

Sh.Krishna Murari. It is hard to believe the submission of the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is completely ignorant of the complaint filed by

Smt. Meena, wife of the respondent No.6, against her husband. This is more

so when the petitioner has enclosed with the petition, a letter dated

5.4.2010, addressed by her husband to the Commissioner of Police,

mentioning the complaints made by respondent No.5 and the members of

his family.

8. It appears that the present petition is being used by Shri Krishan

Murari as a handle to delay the enquiry proceedings being conducted by PS

Badarpur on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife of the respondent

No.6 and the petitioner is being made to fight a proxy battle, while her

husband remains in the background. Interestingly, even today, it is not the

petitioner, but her husband, who is present in the Court, along with the

counsel.

9. It is settled law that when a party approaches the Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking any relief, he/she is

expected to come with clean hands and reveal all the relevant material and

failure do so itself would disentitle a party in equity from being granted any

relief in his/her favour, particularly when extraordinary powers vested in the

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are sought to be

invoked.

10. In the present case, the intentional silence maintained by the

petitioner with regard to the complaint filed by the wife of the respondents

No.6 against her husband, shows that the conduct of the petitioner is not

above board. She has withheld material information from the Court and has

not approached this Court with bonafides. On this count alone, the present

petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Even otherwise, if the petitioner has a grievance that the police

station is not registering a FIR or taking necessary steps on her complaint,

then she has a remedy of filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

before the learned Magistrate. Upon filing such an application the learned

Magistrate can always direct the FIR to be registered and proper

investigation to be made. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation

to ensure a proper investigation is conducted on the part of the police

authorities. In such circumstances, when an equally efficacious alternate

remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain

the writ petition. Further, it is not the right of the petitioner to claim

investigation by a particular agency of her choice and at best, she can claim

that the offence alleged by her be investigated in a proper manner.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court declines to exercise the extraordinary powers vested in it under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed, while granting

leave to the petitioner to seek her remedies in accordance with law.

                                                            (HIMA KOHLI)
OCTOBER 6, 2010                                                JUDGE
sk