Delhi High Court - Orders
Manjeet Bhatia vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 11 October, 2021
Author: Rajnish Bhatnagar
Bench: Rajnish Bhatnagar
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2487/2021
MANJEET BHATIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra and Mr. Anurag
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Dr.M.P.Singh, APP for the State with
SI Ravi Niwas PS Malviya Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
% 11.10.2021 CRL.M.A. 16302/2021 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2487/2021 and CRL.M.A. 16301/2021 (for stay)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Impugned order dated 25.09.2021 passed the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge - 02, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi in Revision Petition No. 80 of 2020, titled as "Manjeet Bhatia Vs. The State & Anr."
(ii) Impugned order dated 07.02.2020 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate - 03, Mahila Court, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CC. No. 11802/2017 titled Kanta Bhatia vs. Manjeet Bhatia & Ors.
(iii) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:12.10.2021 21:40
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been residing on the top floor of the property in question, which is a separate portion with separate entry and exit. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2, who is the wife, is residing at the third floor of the property in question. It is submitted that at no point of time there was any interference from the side of the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner has trespassed on 15.12.2017 is incorrect. It is submitted that on 19.12.2017, a protection order was passed in favour of respondent no. 2 and as per the said order, respondent no. 2 was free to approach the SHO concerned in case of any misbehaviour or any inaction on the part of the petitioner, however, till 16.09.2019, after more than two years, no complaint was made against the petitioner with regard to any misbehaviour on his part. It is submitted that it was only on 19.09.2019 that a complaint under Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was filed by respondent no. 2. It is submitted that in the said complaint, directions were sought for removal of the petitioner on false allegations. Reference is made to para 8 of the complaint dated 16.09.2019, which reads as under:-
"8. That the respondent continues to perpetuate various acts of Domestic Violence against the aggrieved including but not limited to using abusive language against the aggrieved, threatening her with dire consequences etc. etc".
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 25.09.2021 and 07.02.2020, would show that without having regard to the prima facie case existing against the petitioner, the said orders were passed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:12.10.2021 21:404. I have perused the impugned orders dated 25.09.2021 and 07.02.2020.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, let notice be issued to respondent no. 2 on steps being taken by the petitioner by all permissible modes, returnable on 18th January, 2022.
6. Learned APP for the State enters appearance on advance notice and accepts notice.
7. Till the next date of hearing, the operation of impugned orders shall remain stayed.
8. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J OCTOBER 11, 2021 AK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:12.10.2021 21:40