Delhi High Court
Amanpreet Sandhu vs Shaurya Shandilya on 16 July, 2018
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 667/2016 and Crl. M.A. 3577/2016
AMANPREET SANDHU ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arpita Rai and Ms. Rytim
Vohra, Advocates
versus
SHAURYA SHANDILYA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. N. Prabhakar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner and the respondent were concededly married to
each other, their marriage having run into rough weather. This led
to litigation including petition under Protection of Women against
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being initiated. The respondent had
approached the Metropolitan Magistrate with a criminal complaint
under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in May
2015, inter alia, alleging offence under Section 500 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 having been committed by the petitioner. He
pointed out that, in her petition under Section 125 Cr. PC, the
petitioner had alleged that the respondent is a patient of depression,
suffering from clinically diagnosed Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
and was on medication running in poor health and would have
massive showdown with certain persons. He alleged that the
respondent had published a copy of the petition to unauthorized
persons with the intent to bring him in disrepute in their estimation.
2. The Magistrate held inquiry in the course of which the
respondent led evidence by examining not only herself but also at
least two other persons to whom the copy of the petition had been
allegedly circulated. It is on the basis of such material that the
Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner by order dated
19.11.2015.
3. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this court under
Section 482 Cr. PC to seek quashing of the proceedings in the said
criminal case submitting that the allegations in the complaint are
false and misconceived.
4. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC
ought not be exercised unless there is unimpeachable evidence
showing facts to the contrary, in a situation where question of facts
arise. 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)
5. 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.
6. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 16, 2018
yg
