Delhi High Court
Priyanka Jain vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & ... on 6 September, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 6th September, 2018
+ W.P.(CRL) 867/2018
PRIYANKA JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.D.Singh, Mr.Rahul K.Singh,
Mr.Kamla Prasad and Mr.Puneet Jain,
Advocates
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ranbir Singh Kundu, ASC for the
State with Ms.Suman Saharan,
Advocate for the State and SI Aadesh,
PS Prashant Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of investigation in case
FIR No.352/2017 under Sections 498A/406 registered at PS Prashant Vihar
to Crime Branch or any other independent investigating agency.
2. Contention of the petitioner in the present petition is that no fair and
impartial investigation is being conducted by the police and the procedure
established as per law has not been followed. No recovery of the stridhan
and dowry articles of the petitioner was made and the accused persons were
not arrested. It is contended that after no conciliation could take place in the
proceedings before the CAW Cell the above-noted FIR was registered and
as the police officers were showing a bias attitude, the petitioner made a
complaint against the said police officials. Thereafter the petitioner was
issued a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer to
which she submitted a reply followed by another notice under Section 160
Cr.P.C. whereafter her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 3rd August, 2017. The
petitioner also filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No.3223/2017
before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. A status report was filed indicating that after registration of FIR on
14th July, 2017 notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was given to the
complainant on 20th July, 2017 which she replied on 28th July, 2017. After
that notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served to the husband of the
complainant namely Agrah Garg and on 12th September, 2017, he joined the
investigation followed by 11 members of the matrimonial family, who were
impleaded as accused. On 9th December, 2017 dowry articles were handed
over to the complainant after preparing a list as per the directions of the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate and statement of the mediator Pandit, father
and grandparents of the petitioner recorded. On 12 th March, 2018, the
charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court.
4. In a further detailed affidavit filed by the DCP Rohini District, it is
stated that there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or the police manual. It is stated that despite notice to
the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. she did not provide details of the
dowry articles or the bills and proofs regarding the alleged dowry articles
and was only providing the photographs of the dowry articles. Recovery of
dowry articles was thereafter done. The marriage between the parties was
performed on 29th June, 2012 however they separated on 25th January, 2015
and the petitioner lodged the complaint on 21st June, 2017 i.e. after two and
a half years of having separated from the husband and the matrimonial
family pursuant whereto FIR was registered on 14th July, 2017. The dowry
articles as per the admitted list submitted by the accused were handed over
to the petitioner in police station on 9th December, 2017. In reply to the
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. the petitioner stated that she had no bills of
the stridhan articles and insisted the Investigating Officer to arrest the
accused persons even without verifying the facts.
5. It is thus apparent from the reading of the petition, the status report,
affidavit of the DCP concerned and the material on record, the insistence of
the petitioner was on recovery of the articles without providing bills thereof
and arrest of all the accused persons. The investigating agency was not
required to arrest the accused if the investigation could be concluded without
arresting the accused persons who were duly cooperating in the
investigation.
6. As noted above, charge sheet has since been filed on 12th March, 2018
and the present petition was filed only thereafter before this Court on 19 th
March, 2018 primarily aggrieved by the fact that the accused persons have
not been arrested. Charge sheet having been filed against 13 members of the
husband's family including the husband and the investigating agency having
followed all procedures established by law and as the accused were
cooperating in the investigation their arrest was not required, the present
petition is nothing but a tactic to arm twist seeking arrest of the accused
persons.
7. Petition is thus dismissed imposing a cost of ₹5,000/- to be deposited
by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee
within four weeks.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 06, 2018
'mamta'
