Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

44. It is undisputed that FIR No. 197/1993, registered on the complaint of appellant against respondent for the offences under Sections 498A/354/376/511 IPC however, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 354/376 Cr.P.C., which was quashed by the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration And Another (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding as under:-

"17. The complaint made by her with the New York police that her husband committed sexual offences against her 18 months' old female child was investigated by the New York police who found the complaint bereft of truth hook, line and sinker. The present charge is that the appellant committed such offences against the same child at East Kailash, New Delhi sometime during March to July 1991. There is now no case of what happened in United States. The Sessions Judge should have noted that appellant's wife has not even remotely alleged in the complaint filed by her on 19-3-1993 before CAW Cell, New Delhi that the appellant has done anything like that while he was in India. Even the other complaint petition (on which basis the FIR was prepared) is totally silent about a case that the appellant did anything against his daughter anywhere in India. When we perused the statement of Anita Mehra (second respondent) we felt no doubt that she has been brimming with acerbity towards the petitioner on account of other causes. She describes her marital life with petitioner as "extremely painful and unhappy from the very inception". She complains that petitioner has "a history of irrational outbursts of temper and violence". She accused him of being alcoholic and prone to inflicting severe physical violence on her from 1980 onwards.