Delhi High Court
Rajkumar Pathak vs Nidhi Verma on 21 January, 2019
SHAKUN ANAND
29.01.2019 12:48
$~33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 21st January, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 286/2019 and Crl. M.A. 1206/2019
RAJKUMAR PATHAK ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Mr.
Vaibhav Srivastava, Mr. Saaaduzzaman and
Mr. P. Kaistha, Advocates
versus
NIDHI VERMA ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The respondent is described as a person married to a senior
serving officer of Indian Police Service (IPS), she having had reasons
to institute proceedings against her husband by a petition (complaint
case no.15783/2014) under Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to seek certain reliefs. It is stated that
she had sworn an affidavit on 24.01.2015 which was submitted by her
in the course of the said proceedings, then pending in the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, the disclosures made in the affidavit
concerning the assets, investments, etc. having a bearing on the
subject matter of the case.
2. The petitioner claims to be a public-spirited person who had
certain information about the assets of the respondent who, according
to him, had indulged in deliberate suppression of certain facts
concerning certain properties, allegedly illegal, owned by the
respondent. Terming the aforesaid affidavit dated 24.01.2015 to be an
act in the nature of perjury, he had intervened in the proceedings in the
criminal complaint case of the respondent against her husband by
moving an application seeking initiation of inquiry under Section 340
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC). The above-said
application was resisted by the respondent who, in the meanwhile, had
chosen to withdraw the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the submission that
she had "reconciled with her husband" and was "living happily in her
matrimonial home".
3. The application of the petitioner was dismissed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 02.06.2018. The petitioner
challenged the said order by appeal (Crl. A. 246/2018) in the court of
the Sessions under Section 341 Cr. PC. The appeal was dismissed by
the court of Sessions by order dated 26.10.2018.
4. The petitioner has come up to this court by the present petition
under Section 482 Cr. PC to assail the said two orders of the courts
below.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having
perused the record, this court finds no good reason to entertain the
petition. The petitioner had no personal stake in the proceedings
under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The said
proceedings initiated by the respondent have since been withdrawn,
the couple having reconciled and rejoined. The Metropolitan
Magistrate has dismissed the complaint, and the first appellate court
has upheld the said order, with observation that it was not expedient to
take the complaint under Section 340 Cr.PC further. Against the
backdrop of the case in which it had been brought, this court finds no
reason why the petitioner should be allowed a role larger than that of
an informant so as to be permitted to pursue it further in the context of
proceedings under the special law meant for protection of women
against domestic violence.
6. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 21, 2019
yg
