Delhi High Court - Orders
Aditya Sharma And Anr vs State And Anr on 4 October, 2023
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1242/2023
ADITYA SHARMA AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harshit Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
STATE AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State.
SI Vivek Singh, PS Sarojini Nagar.
Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Mr. Varun Sharma
and Mr. Raghav Arora, Advocates for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 04.10.2023
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks quashing of FIR No. 297/2022, dated 19.07.2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') registered at PS Sarojini Nagar.
2. The present FIR was registered at the instance of Ms. Priya Ramrakhiani, respondent no. 2 herein wherein she levelled allegations against petitioners no. 1 and 2, who are her husband and mother-in-law, respectively. During the course of hearing of the present petition, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre in order to explore the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement. However, the mediation process has failed.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2023 at 22:10:47
3. The case of the prosecution, as per the status report dated 07.07.2023 authored by Inspector Devender Kaushik, SHO PS Sarojini Nagar is as under:
"1. Most respectfully, it is submitted that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Priya Ramrakhiani D/o Smt. Jyoti Mirani R/o 1752, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi-110023 wherein she has alleged that in February 2017 she used to work at NIIT Gurgaon and met with Aditya Sharma in a get together of office party. Aditya was a friend of her another friend Yashi Shrivastava, from Lucknow. Aditya Sharma used to work with Hard Rock Cafe, Gurgaon as their Regional Sales Manager (North) and used to live in F 7/9, Vatika India Next, Sector 82A, Gurgaon. They met in the month of February 2021 and started dating in March, 2017. At that time, Aditya did not tell her that he was 10 years elder to her. She spent a lot of time with him and they used to go on no.
of dates. In May 2017, Aditya's father was passed away due to cancer and he resigned from Hard Rock Cafe. He then joined Farzi Cafe (Massive Restaurants) as DGM Sales.
2. That, on 18th of July 2021 she got married with Aditya Sharma in Arya Samaj Mandir and on the next day i.e. 19th of July they got registered their marriage. Aditya's mother told her to never tell her mother that she got married. There were only two witnesses of our marriage (1) Sunita Sharma-mother of Aditya Sharma and (2) Ajay Shrivastav- Works as a lawyer in AKTU, their tenant. Thereafter, she went back to Delhi on 21 July, 2021 and tried to convince her mother for a ritual wedding. She agreed and the date was finalized to 24th October and the venue was also finalized to Lucknow because Aditya's mother could not travel to Delhi leaving their dogs behind. She alongwith her mother travelled to Lucknow on 1 August being her birthday, where they preponed the wedding to 18 October. On that day, Aditya's mother gifted her a jewelry set for wedding along with a bottle of perfume. At that time, Aditya's mother (Smt. Sunita Sharma) said that they would pay for her Lehenga etc. Since then, she started noticing changes in Aditya Sharma as his behavior was extremely hostile towards her. Aditya started misbehaving with her and used to criticize her on her looks, weight and made fun of her mother's looks and appearance. 11. They again went to Lucknow on 11 and 12" Sept 2021, this time it became worse for them as Aditya's mother gave them Rs 46000 in cash for the lehenga and 2 suits. Then, they went to GenX Crescent Hotel to finalize the decorations and other stuff, and paid Rs.1,00,000/- advance to the Hotel. Aditya and his mother never This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2023 at 22:10:47 mentioned that they were going to pay or to split the bill for the reception. All the payment was done by her mother. Complainant's mother ended up with spending a total of Rs.ls Lakhs on this whole affair, including Rs.10,00,000 on jewellery. Rs.3,50,000/- tor the venue and festivities, Rs. 1,50,000/· for the clothes etc. She spent around Rs.1,50,000/- from my loan amount for the wedding. Still it was not enough for them.
3. That, marriage was solemnized on 18th of Oct. 2021, since that marriage with Aditya Sharma, he (Aditya) was forcing her to give him money on various occasions and all other cash amount of 'Shagans and gifts given to her by all the relatives. Aditya's mother had taken away all the Shagans and gifts she received. Aditya and his mother were not happy with the marriage and they were harassing her physically and mentally for the demand of dowry.
4. She further alleged that her husband and her mother in law had demanded a Safari Car and Kawasaki Bike. She in her complaint has further alleged that her husband is not taking care of her and he is not paying maintenance to her, now she has been residing with her parents at Delhi. She also alleged that her husband and her mother in law had kept her jewellery and Stridhan with them, and they are not willing to return the Stridhan."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against the latter are false. It is submitted that respondent no. 2/complainant lived at their matrimonial home only for two days and left on a happy note. It is submitted that respondent no.2/complainant's mother was always opposed to the relationship and the complainant is acting as per her instructions.
5. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations of cruelty in the FIR. The allegations are all general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose the commission of any offences. It is submitted that petitioner no. 1, even before the Crime Against Women Cell submitted that he wants to live with respondent no.2/complainant.
6. It is submitted that as opposed to what has been alleged, the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2023 at 22:10:48 petitioners also paid for the reception function. They even paid for the complainant's outfit and gifted her jewellery.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon WhatsApp messages exchanged between him and the complainant. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to receipts pertaining to purchase of jewellery gifted to the complainant and receipt of a payment made for the reception function.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, wherein they have corroborated the version of the FIR. A notice under Section 41(1A) was served upon petitioner no. 1, pursuant to which he joined investigation and stated he still wishes to continue his relationship with respondent no. 2. It is submitted that the investigation in the present case stands completed and the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC qua the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 opposes the present petition and submits that the latter has suffered on account of actions of the petitioners. It is submitted that after the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnized and the reception function took place, the behaviour of petitioner no. 1 towards her changed. He used to threaten to hit her and taunt her. It was alleged that suddenly, at 2:00 AM on the night on 30.10.2021, he woke her up and asked her to leave the house. Petitioner no. 2 took all of her jewellery from the complainant and taunted her about the expenses of the reception. Thereafter, the complainant left for Kanpur and returned to Delhi on 02.11.2021. It was alleged that petitioner no. 1 called up the complainant and said that he was ready to forget about all the disputes if she gave Rs.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2023 at 22:10:48 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) to the former. It is further submitted that the petitioners never participated in the mediation proceedings before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The investigation in the present case is complete and the chargesheet has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 have, after investigation, been placed before the learned Trial Court.
12. It is settled law that the scope of enquiry in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is limited. This inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. At this stage, in a proceeding seeking quashing of an FIR, this Court cannot examine the veracity of the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner and decide disputed questions of fact.
13. In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
14. Needless to state, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioners.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J OCTOBER 04, 2023/sn This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/10/2023 at 22:10:48