Delhi High Court
Arzoo Gupta vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 5 September, 2018
$~3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 5th September 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3156/2015 and Crl.M.A.11277/2015, 12282/2016
ARZOO GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kaushal Chauhan, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State with SI Dinesh Kumar, PS
Subhash Place.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. By the petition at hand, prayer is made for this court to exercise
its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to quash the case registered as First
Information Report (FIR) No.462/2015 of Police Station Saraswati
Vihar, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the
ground that it is an abuse of the process of law.
2. The FIR which is the subject-matter of the petition at hand was
registered on 15.05.2015 on the complaint of the second respondent
(the first informant). The first informant is the mother of Pankaj
Gupta, who statedly committed suicide by hanging himself by neck at
his home on 07.09.2014. The petitioner is the wife of the said Pankaj
Gupta, they having got married on 20.04.2014. It is clear from the
allegations made in the FIR that after the marriage, some dispute arose
on account of which the petitioner and her husband Pankaj Gupta
shifted residence to a rented accommodation in a colony described as
Sri Nagar within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Saraswati
Vihar where the FIR was registered.
3. It is the allegation of the first informant in the FIR that her son
Pankaj Gupta had agreed to shift to the rented accommodation under
undue pressure of the petitioner, who along with her relatives on the
side of her parental family had been demanding that he severed his
relation with his family or else, she would commit suicide.
References have been made to some incriminating messages
exchanged on phone by the petitioner with her husband. It is also
alleged that the petitioner was pressurizing her husband to demand his
share in the family property from the mother, exchanges to which
effect are stated to be subject-matter of recordings in the mobile phone
of the deceased. It is further alleged that the petitioner was
threatening her husband that if he failed to take his share in the family
property, she would lodge a false case of dowry demand. By these
allegations, the first informant states, the petitioner had incited and
abetted the suicide committed by Pankaj Gupta.
4. The grounds on which quashing of the FIR is sought are
primarily that the FIR was lodged after a delay of six months - the
suicide took place on 07.09.2014 whereas FIR was registered on
15.05.2015; the allegations made in the FIR are false and concocted
and do not make out a case of abetment of suicide; and that the earlier
phone instrument did not contain any incriminating recording as has
been alleged.
5. The submission as to whether the mobile phone instrument had
incriminating recording of conversation or not is a matter of
investigation and, in the given facts and circumstances, there is no
reason why the investigating agency should be stopped from a
comprehensive probe. During the course of submissions, the counsel
for the petitioner tried to mislead the Court by saying that a closure
report had been filed by the investigating agency. On being repeatedly
asked, she was unable to show any record to such effect. It is most
unfortunate that while pressing the petition, the counsel should invent
facts.
6. It is not proper at this stage to stop the investigative probe only
on account of the fact that the FIR was registered about six months
after the suicide. It has to be noted that in the complaint which led to
the registration of FIR there is a grievance expressed that the police
had failed to take any action in the matter. It has also to be borne in
mind that the first informant had earlier approached the police which
failed to register any case and, on this account, she was constrained to
invoke jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and approached the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, under whose directions the FIR was
eventually registered. Whether or not there was an intentional or
inordinate delay will have to be examined only after the probe is
complete.
7. It is not advisable in the given fact-situation to this court to
examine the truthfulness of the allegations in the FIR while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs.
Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330].
8. For above reasons, the petition is dismissed.
9. This disposes of pending applications as well.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
vk
