Tusharanshu Sharma & Ors vs State & Ors on 25 July, 2022

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Tusharanshu Sharma & Ors vs State & Ors on 25 July, 2022

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of FIR bearing no.0757/2016 dated 20.11.2016 registered under sections 498-A/ 406/323/377/34, IPC, 1860 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi alongwith all consequential proceedings.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Mr. Sahil Giri, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 accepts notice.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:47:35

4. The petitioners have already filed amended writ petition in pursuance of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2019. The Special Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred as "SPA") stated to be executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of the petitioner no.2 has already been verified as reflecting from the Status Report dated 08.12.2021, wherein the concerned SHO, P.S. Keshav Puram reported that SPA dated 22.02.2019 stated to be executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of the petitioner no.2 has been verified. The SPA stated to be executed on 22.01.2022 by the petitioner nos.3 and 4 in favour of the petitioner no.2 is also on record.

5. The SPA dated 22.02.2019 stated to be executed by the respondent no.3 in favour of her maternal grandfather, namely, Ram Chander Aggarwal at Jakarta is also on record. The petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 and the respondent no.3 are as such represented through their SPA. The Additional Public Prosecutor for State objected that the said SPA was never supplied to the concerned Investigation Officer for verification.

6. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 got married according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 14.04.2016 at Alipur, Delhi and out of their marriage no issue was born. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 due to matrimonial differences started to live separately since 21.08.2016 and at present they are residing at France and Jakarta (Indonasia) respectively.

7. The present FIR bearing no. 0757/2016 dated 20.11.2016 was got registered under sections 498-A/ 406/323/377/34, IPC at P.S. Keshav Puram, on the basis of the complaint made by the respondent no.3/Nidhi Sharma wherein the petitioners were implicated. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under sections 498- A/406/323/377/34, IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:47:35 the trial is pending in the Court of MM (Mahila Court), North West, Rohini Court, Delhi.

8. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 due to matrimonial differences also initiated various litigations against each other, the details of which are as under:-

i) Petition U/S 125 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 57363/2016 titled as "Nidhi Sharma Vs. Tusharanshu Sharma"

pending in the court of Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court (North-West), Rohini, Delhi.

ii) FIR No. 0757/2017, PS: Keshav Puram, U/s 498A/406/377/34 IPC, titled as State Vs. Tusharanshu Sharma and others (charge-sheet filed) pending in the court of Ms. Aakansha Vyas, Ld. MM/Mahila Court (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi.

iii) Petition U/s 13 (l)(ia) HMA Act bearing no.

135/2017 titled as "Tusharanshu Sharma Vs. Nidhi Sharma" pending in the court of Sh. Rajan Walia, Judge, Family Court, (North-West) Family Court , Panchkula, Haryana.

iv) Petition for quashing of FIR No. 0757/2017, in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by three petitioners 1) Tusharanshu Sharma 2)Dr. Kanupriya, Sister of the husband 3) Surinder Kumar Sharma, father & Dr. Satyabhama, mother

vi) Civil suit bearing no. 272/2010 for damages titled "Tusharanshu Sharma Vs. Nidhi Sharma"

pending in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Panchkula, Haryana.

vii) Suit for mandatory injunction bearing no.

571/17 titled "Tusharanshu Sharma Vs. Nidhi Sharma" pending in the Court of Sr. Vipin Kharab, JSCC-ASCJ/GJ, North-West, Rohini, Delhi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:47:35

viii) Complaint filed before the PS Sector-3, Chandigarh filed by father/SPA Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma.

ix) The respondent no.3 also filed a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 titled as Nidhi Sharma Vs. Tusharanshu Sharma bearing CC no.21536/2016, which was referred for mediation by the Court of Ms. Aakansha Vyas, MM (Mahila Court), North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

9. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 vide Settlement dated 08.02.2019 have settled their disputes and have agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent without levelling allegations and counter allegations against each other in accordance with law. It was further agreed that the petitioner no.1 will pay Rs.12,00,000/- (twelve lakhs) to the respondent no.3 towards the full and final settlement of all the legal entitlements (past, present and future) arising out of their marriage including permanent alimony/maintenance/istridhan etc. and miscellaneous and legal expenses.

10. The petitioner no.2 who is the Special Power of Attorney on behalf of the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 stated that Rs. 8,00,000/-out of the settled amount has already been paid which is also acknowledged by the Special Power of Attorney of the respondent no.3 as well as the counsel. The petitioner no.2 also delivered a demand draft amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- bearing no. 900326 dated 22.07.2022 issued by the State Bank of India towards payment of balance settled amount which is accepted by the Special Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent no.3.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:47:35

11. The marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 has already been dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent vide judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Court of Mr. Mahesh Chander Gupta, Judge Family Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi in HMA no.1675/2019 titled as Sh. Tusharanshu Sharma and Smt. Nidhi Sharma.

12. The counsel for the petitioners and the respondent no.3 stated that the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 have already settled their disputes vide Settlement dated 08.02.2019 as detailed hereinabove and after their divorce have already re-married and in these circumstances, no useful purpose shall be served if the trial in pursuance of the FIR bearing no. 0757/2016 dated 20.11.2016 registered under sections 498-A/ 406/323/377/34, IPC, 1860 is allowed to be continued.

13. Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents no.1/State stated that as the pending disputes between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 have already settled and as such he does not have any objection if the present petition is allowed and the FIR bearing no. 0757/2016 dated 20.11.2016 registered under sections 498-A/ 406/323/377/34, IPC, 1860 is ordered to be quashed. However, he stated that the necessary documents were not supplied to the Investigation Officer for proper verification.

14. The Supreme Court continuously observed that the extraordinary power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution and can be used to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure ends of justice and the exercise of inherent powers entirely depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute depending Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:47:35 on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court in Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another,(2011) 5 SCC 708, considered the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and observed as under:-

16. Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite that although the power possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very wide but it is not unbridled. It has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for which alone the Court exists.

15. The respondent no.3 has already settled pending disputes with the petitioners out of her free will and without any force, fear and coercion and has already received entire settled amount. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.3 have already remarried after divorce. No useful purpose shall be served if proceedings arising out of FIR bearing no. 0757/2016 are allowed to be continued.

16. Accordingly, FIR bearing no. 0757/2016 dated 20.11.2016 registered under sections 498-A/ 406/323/377/34, IPC, 1860 with all consequential proceedings including judicial proceedings is ordered to be quashed.

17. The petition alongwith pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J JULY 25, 2022/j Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:26.07.2022 17:47:35

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders