BRIJESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brijesh Kumar Gupta (the petitioner) seeks quashing of FIR No. 355/2011 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Model Town, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2 Shikha Gupta. She has contested the petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent No.2 and have examined the record. The petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 29.10.2009 and after marriage, they lived together at matrimonial home, FU-40, Pitam Pura, Delhi in a joint family. Relations became strained and on 01.04.2011 respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home. She lodged complaint dated 02.04.2011 in Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell). After attempts to reconcile the differences did not materialize on the recommendations of CAW Cell, FIR was registered against the petitioner and his parents on 29.08.2011 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court without effecting arrest of the petitioner and his parents. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive and the allegations levelled therein do not make out any case under Sections 406/498A IPC. The criminal proceedings have been initiated to harass the petitioner and his family members. In the complaint dated 02.04.2011, there are no allegation of demand of dowry and entrustment of it to the petitioner. The omnibus allegations cannot be taken at their face value and even if they are taken and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The allegations levelled are absurd and inherently improbable and no conclusion can be arrived that there was sufficient ground for proceedings against the petitioner. The complainant never lodged any complaint with the police about the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, though she was having two mobile phones with her and also the facility to send E-mail. The complainant did not intend to live in a joint family and always insisted the petitioner to live separate from his parents to enjoy a free life without family restrictions. In the proceedings before CAW Cell, she categorically expressed her desire to live separate with the petitioner only to which he did not agree. It was further pointed out that the complainant voluntarily accompanied the petitioner on 29.10.2011 on a fun making trip out of Delhi to celebrate second marriage anniversary. She enjoyed the trip in hotels and tourist places and returned to Delhi on 01.11.2011. Apparently, the complaint dated 02.04.2011 was motivated and the allegations levelled therein were false. Reliance was placed on authorities, 'State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal , 1992 Supp1 SCC 335; 'Ashok Chaturvedi & ors. Vs. Shitul H Chanchani & anr., 1998 5 JT 452'; 'R.Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta & ors., 2009 1 SCC 516' ; 'Raj Kumar Khanna vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & ors., 2002 95 DLT 147' ; 'Geeta Mehrotra & anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr., 2012 10 SCC 741' ; 'Rishi Anand & anr. Vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & ors., 2002 4 SCC 72' ; 'Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. State of Punjab and ors., 2011 8 SCC 438' ; 'Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, 1988 AIR(SC) 121' 'Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1990 CrLJ 407' ; 'Chandralekha and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.', ; 'Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Vs. State & anr.,2007 4 JCC(Del) 3074' ; 'Neelu Chopra & anr. Vs. Bharti, 2009 10 SCC 184' ; 'Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat & ors., 2008 5 SCC 668' ; 'S.K.Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., 2008 5 SCC 662' ; 'Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Vs. State & anr.,2007 4 JCC(Del) 3074' & 'Anu Gill vs. State & anr., 2001 92 DLT 179'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 urged that there are specific and definite allegations against the petitioner and his parents for subjecting the complainant with cruelty and harassment for and on account of dowry demands. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as charge-sheet has already been filed in the Court and the Trial Court is to make up mind to frame charges. The dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioner and his family members. Major chunk of the articles is still in their custody. He further urged that during reconciliation proceedings, the petitioner had agreed to take the complainant for a trip outside Delhi. However, it was a pre-planned and well executed conspiracy to create evidence. There was no change in the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner after return from the trip. The photographs placed on record exhibit a pre-planned venture to have specific poses for use at later stage. The contents of the complaint dated 02.04.2011 are correct. The authorities cited and relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.