Delhi High Court
Kirti Sharma vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 16 August, 2018
$~5 & 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 2288/2015 and Crl. M.A. 8642/2015
KIRTI SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Jain and Ms. Aakriti
Dhawan, Advocates
versus
NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State
Ms. Meenakshi S. Devgan, Advocate for R-2
+ CRL.M.C. 4756/2015 and Crl. M.A. 17177/2015
G K SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Jain and Ms. Aakriti
Dhawan, Advocates
versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State
Ms. Meenakshi S. Devgan, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The first information report (FIR) no.67/2013 was registered by
police station Maya Puri on 13.03.2013 involving offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC on the complaint of the second
respondent. The investigation into the said FIR was completed and a
report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.PC) dated 13.12.2013 was submitted in the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate wherein besides others, the petitioners herein
were shown as the accused persons. These petitions were filed in
May and November 2015 with the prayer that this court, in exercise of
its inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC, quash
the said FIR, the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings arising
therefrom against the petitioners.
2. The second respondent (complainant) was married to Varun
Sharma, son of the petitioner in the second captioned petition on
16.02.2010 in New Delhi. The petitioner in the first captioned petition
is the sister of the said Varun Sharma and, therefore, related to the
complainant as a sister-in-law (Nanad). The allegations have been
made in the FIR and the statements which were recorded during the
course of investigation leading to the charge-sheet being presented
about their complicity in the offence particularly under Section 498A
IPC.
3. The first petitioner is described as a U.K. citizen, who has been
settled in that country with her family since 2005. It is her case that
the allegations made against her, particularly about transfer of a flat in
the name of the second petitioner under duress exerted by her, are
false and baseless, levelled out of vendetta and with a view to extract
money. She also refers to Section 188 read with Section 4 Cr. PC to
raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
4. The petitioner in the second captioned petition, on the other
hand, has pleaded that he was living separately from the complainant
since 2011, the complaint having been filed after a delay of two and
half years in 2013 on false and concocted version. He also submits
that the complainant after marriage had moved to United States of
America with her husband (son of the second petitioner) and,
therefore, his complicity in the cruelty that is alleged to have been
meted out by the husband is highly improbable.
5. The submissions made by the petitioner give rise to the
questions of facts which cannot be addressed conclusively in the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC. In this context, the following
observations of the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs.
Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 need to be borne in mind.
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC,
if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution
against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at
the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing
of charges. These are all stages before the
commencement of the actual trial. The same
parameters would naturally be available for later
stages as well. The power vested in the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to
hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences
inasmuch as it would negate the
prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the
prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution,
care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court
has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by
the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion
that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable,
and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as
would rule out and displace the assertions contained in
the charges levelled against the accused; and the
material produced is such as would clearly reject and
overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the
accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It
should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the
accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant,
without the necessity of recording any evidence. For
this the material relied upon by the defence should not
have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be
justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and
impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the
accused should be such as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual
basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the
judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it
to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash
such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent
abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of
justice."
(emphasis supplied)
6. At the hearing, it was conceded that the charge-sheet which was
presented in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate has been at the
stage of consideration for framing of charge. There is no reason why
the contentions including the issue of jurisdiction set out in these
petitions cannot be presented for consideration to the trial court at the
stage of consideration of the case for prosecution for framing of
charge.
7. No case is made out for interference by this court under Section
482 Cr. PC.
8. In above view reserving the contentions of the petitioners to be
agitated before the trial court at the time of consideration of charge,
these petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 16, 2018
yg
