Delhi High Court
Arun Jain & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 16 July, 2018
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 381/2016 and Crl. M.A. 1618/2016
ARUN JAIN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Mr.
Rosemany Raju, Ms. Aishwarya M. and
Ms. Upasana Goel, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. By the petition at hand prayer is made for the order dated
28.09.2015 of the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate taking
cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC and
issuing summons to the petitioners as accused on the basis of report
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC)
submitted on conclusion of investigation into first information
report no.20/14 of police station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanak
Pura to be set aside primarily on the ground that the allegations in
the case are unfounded.
2. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the FIR of the
case was lodged on 31.10.2013 after the marriage of the parties
(solemnized on 01.11.1996) had been dissolved by a decree of
divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
granted on 04.04.2013.
3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and having gone
through the record, this court finds the petition to be misconceived.
The criminal court of competent jurisdiction has found sufficient
grounds to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of evidence
gathered by the police during investigation into FIR. The contention
of the petitioners, at best, raises questions of facts which cannot be
adjudicated upon in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC.
Though in a slightly different context explaining the parameters of
the jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr. PC, the Supreme Court in the case of Suryalakshmi
Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd., (2008) 13 SCC 678
observed thus :-
"22. Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although
appears to be plausible should not be taken into
consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet
again, the High Court at that stage would not ordinarily
enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does
not mean that documents of unimpeachable character
should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the
purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of
process of court or that the complaint petition is filed for
causing mere harassment to the accused. While we are
not oblivious of the fact that although a large number of
disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil
courts, but criminal cases are filed only for achieving the
ultimate goal, namely, to force the accused to pay the
amount due to the complainant immediately. The courts
on the one hand should not encourage such a practice;
but, on the other, cannot also travel beyond its
jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is
otherwise genuine. The courts cannot also lose sight of
the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and
criminal proceedings would be maintainable."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Reserving the contentions raised by the petitioner in the
petition at hand, which may be agitated in the trial before the court
where the matter is pending, in answer to the charge, this court
declines to interfere under Section 482 Cr. PC.
5. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 16, 2018
yg
