Delhi District Court
Prem Chand Singhal vs Smt. Sonali Aggarwal on 30 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ, SPECIAL
JUDGE(NDPS) NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Case ID : 02404R0380072015
Criminal Appeal 34/2015
Prem Chand Singhal,
S/o Shri Amar Singh Singhal,
R/o H. No. 1/6817, Pratap Gali,
East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara,
Delhi - 10 032.
..... Appellant
Versus
1 Smt. Sonali Aggarwal,
W/o Shri Rohit Gupta,
D/o Shri Govind Aggarwal,
R/o presently residing at 263,
Swastik Kunj Apartment,
Sector-13, Rohini,
Delhi - 110 085.
2 State (GNCT of Delhi)
..... Respondents.
Appeal arising out of order dated
16.7.2015 passed in CC 140/3
Date of institution of the case : 20.10.2015
Date when final arguments concluded : 30.11.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.11.2015
.
(CA 34/15) Page 1 of4
JUDGMENT:
1 Appellant before this court has challenged an order dated 16.7.15 passed by Ld. Court of Ms. Richa Manchanda, MM, Mahila Court in CC 140/3. By way of impugned order, Ld. trial court was pleased to order issuance of summons to the appellant besides some other persons.
2 During course of his submission, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for appellant, that as the marriage had been solemnized in Kathmandu, Ld. trial court had no jurisdiction in this matter. It was further submitted that the appellant was cousin brother of husband of the respondent who infact never resided in a "shared house hold" alongwith the appellant. It was submitted that as such, respondent was not in a domestic relationship residing in the same house hold as the appellant, and as such appellant ought not to have been summoned by Ld. trial court. It was further submitted that even name of father of appellant had been wrongly mentioned in the memo of parties and the appellant had hardly met the respondent after her marriage. It was claimed that as parties had not resided together, the appellant ought not to have been summoned by Ld. trial court and that as case of the respondent was based on falsehood and she had not approached the ld. trial court with clean hands, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 3 Ld. counsel for respondent on the other hand has drawn attention of this court to complaint/application filed before Ld trial court and has submitted that there were specific allegations therein regarding the appellant having harassed and tortured the respondent in the matrimonial home. It was claimed that the respondent and her .
(CA 34/15) Page 2 of4 husband Rohit even spent their first night (Suhagraat) in house of the appellant. It was claimed that in view of facts mentioned in the complaint, the appellant had been rightly summoned by the ld. trial court. Dismissal of appeal was prayed.
4 Robkar had been issued for summoning of trial court record. As per report of Ahlmad of Ld. trial court, the file was not traceable. With consent of counsels for both sides, copy of application / complaint which had been forwarded to the appellant alongwith the summon was perused by this court.
5 It appears from records produced that residential address of the appellant as mentioned in the memo of parties is "M/s Blue Horse Hosiery, Jurab Mandi, Sher Singh Market, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi". Interestingly, as per memo of parties none of the other seven respondents share the said address.
6 No doubt the appellant is cousin brother of husband of the complainant, but perusal of the complaint reveals that there is no averment to the effect that they were living in a "shared household". The present respondent had claimed residence order in respect of three premises and had also claimed restraint orders in respect of the said three premises, but nowhere had mentioned residential address of the present appellant as being the premises in respect of which she was claiming a restraint order or a residence order. 7 In Vijay Verma Vs. State NCT of Delhi [2010(7) AD (Delhi)], it had been observed inter-alia that the words "at any point of time" as mentioned in Section 2 (f) of PWDV Act cannot be equated with the words "at any point of time in the past". It was observed in Harbans Lal Malik V Payal Malik (Crl. Revision P. No. 253/2010) that in case .
(CA 34/15) Page 3 of4 there had been relationship in the past and the domestic relationship did not continue to the present, the person cannot be made a respondent on the ground of a past relationship. To similar effect was the observation made in K. Narasimhan Vs. Smt. Rohini (2010 Cr.LJ 2173) wherein it was observed that a person staying elsewhere and only visiting the household and staying for some time cannot be said to be in a domestic relationship in the shared household. 8 As per admitted case of the respondent, as made out in the complaint, there was no domestic relationship in a shared household between her and the present appellant. In that view of matter, in considered opinion of this court, summoning of the appellant by Ld. trial court was bad in eyes of law.
9 It may be mentioned herein that whatever has been observed herein above is solely for purpose of disposal of the present appeal and be not construed as being opinion of this court on merits of allegations made by the complainant.
10 Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order in so far as it relates to summoning of present appellant is quashed. 11 Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 30.11.2015 ASJ,Spl. Judge(NDPS)
North,Rohini Courts, Delhi
.
(CA 34/15) Page 4 of4