Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10) Per contra, the Petitioner has raised various grounds in the Petition supporting his prayer of quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from the impugned F.I.R. These grounds include the contentions that there are contrary statements of witnesses in the chargesheet; the prosecution is vitiated by malice on the part of the Respondent No. 2; the Respondent No. 2 has stated certain incorrect facts in her complaint under the DV Act; there is no consistency in the statements of the Respondent No. 2 in various proceedings initiated by her and the investigation carried out by the police is botched up. Notwithstanding the grounds raised by the Gitalaxmi 1-wp-2638-2022.doc Petitioner in the Petition, while advancing arguments before us, learned counsel Mr. Jauhar canvassed the sole ground that, the Respondent No. 2- wife having filed the First Motion under Section 13B(1) of the HMA and now refusing to proceed with the Second Motion under Section 13B(2) of the HMA is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He argued that such conduct of the Respondent No. 2, having been held as contumacious by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court justifies quashing of the criminal proceedings against him. Withdrawing criminal proceedings was one of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and having failed to comply with the same, the Respondent No. 2 has abused the process of law. 10.1) Mr. Jauhar placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs. Nahid Begum and Another 1, to buttress his contention that once having agreed to the settlement terms executed between the parties, continuance of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. He also placed reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ruchi Agrawal Vs. Amit Agrawal2 in which the Supreme Court opined that, a wife having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, then failing to comply with the rest of the terms will be an abuse of process of law. It was thus urged that, the criminal proceedings be quashed and the Petition be allowed. 

 Gitalaxmi                                                        1-wp-2638-2022.doc

12)             Smt. Mhatre, learned APP strongly refuted the arguments

advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and supported the prosecution. She relied on the statements of witnesses in the chargesheet, who have corroborated the story of the Respondent No. 2. She also opposed the contention of the Petitioner that the investigation was botched up and was biased. She thus prayed that, the Petition be dismissed and the interim stay on the proceedings before the trial Court to be vacated.

She is permitted by the very statute on which the Petitioner canvasses his argument, to renege her consent without adverse consequence.

28) Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Jauhar, on behalf of the Petitioner limits his arguments to the aforesaid ground to assail the criminal proceedings, we have also perused the grounds set out in the Petition. The Petitioner's contention regarding contradictory statements of witnesses given to the police need to be tested in a trial. The accusation that the police botched up the investigation does not appeal us. At this stage, the High Court is not bound to hold a mini trial to determine the veracity of the allegations in the F.I.R./Chargesheet. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/Investigating Agency. A plain reading of the F.I.R. clearly reveals availability of sufficient material to proceed further against the Petitioner and clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Furthermore, we are also informed that the Petitioner has already made an application seeking discharge from the criminal case under the relevant provision of the Cr.P.C., before the trial Court.