Delhi High Court - Orders
Jaikant Jha & Anr vs The State on 3 January, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2595/2021& CRL.M.A. 20953/2021(Exemption) &
CRL.M.A. 20952/2021(Stay)
JAIKANT JHA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC for State with
Mr. Karan Dhalla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 03.01.2022
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
W.P.(CRL) 2595/2021
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 0148/2021, under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter "SC/ST Act") registered at Police Station Chhawla, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the elder son of the petitioners namely Nikhil Jha got married with the daughter of the complainant namely Priyanka. It is submitted that out of the wedlock, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:04.01.2022 13:03:42 two daughters namely Priyana and Yashika were born in the years 2017 and 2019 respectively.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that matrimonial disputes arose between the wife and the husband, due to which the instant FIR was lodged against the petitioners. It is submitted that the instant criminal proceedings filed against the petitioners under SC/ST Act is nothing but a gross misuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and they have been falsely implicated by the complainant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the complainant's daughter Priyanka and their son Nikhil. He has also brought the attention of this Court on the statement made by the petitioner no. 2 which is appended as Annexure P-4. It is submitted that as per the statement of the petitioner no. 2, she has disowned her son Nikhil.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners further submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the FIR bearing No. 0148/2021 and other proceedings pursuant to the FIR may be quashed.
6. Per contra, Mr. Avi Singh, learned ASC appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hands. It is submitted that the petitioners have not disclosed the facts that after the investigation, Investigating Agency has already filed a closure report before the Court concerned as no case is made out against the petitioners.
7. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of State fairly conceded that protest Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:04.01.2022 13:03:42 application has been filed by the complainant against the closure report, but it is still pending before the Court concerned for further adjudication. As per the closure report, no case is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, there is no ground available for the petitioners for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR as prayed. The instant petition is pre mature and devoid of any merit and accordingly, may be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the FIR and statement which is appended as Annexure P-4.
9. The facts regarding filing of the closure report before the Court concerned has not been mentioned by the petitioners in the petition. The protest application has been filed by the complainant which is still pending before the Court concerned for further adjudication.
10. On the statement made by learned ASC appearing on behalf of State, as the protest application is still pending before the Court concerned, therefore, it is not an appropriate stage for adjudicating the instant writ petition for quashing of the FIR as prayed at this stage.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and contentions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the petition.
12. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J JANUARY 3, 2022 dy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:04.01.2022 13:03:42