ABHISHEK KUMAR Vs. NEHA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioner, seeking appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) for setting aside of impugned order dtd. 6/4/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ('Sessions Court'), and for quashing of the complaint filed under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('PWDV Act') pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court').

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is, that after solemnization of his marriage with respondent on 28/1/2012 at Bihar, he and the respondent had come to Indirapuram, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh on 31/2/2012 and had started residing together. On 2/2/2012, the mother and elder sister of respondent had also come to stay at the matrimonial home of the respondent and had started residing there along with newly-wed couple. On 5/2/2012, the petitioner's mother, elder sister, elder brother-in-law and younger cousin sister had visited his house to attend a puja ceremony and had thereafter returned to their home, but the respondent's family had continued to reside with them till 8/2/2012. On 9/2/2012, the mother and elder sister of respondent had gone back to Bihar, and on the same day, the petitioner and respondent had gone to Goa, and had returned to Delhi on 14/2/2012. On 18/2/2012, again the respondent's mother, father and her elder sister had come to the matrimonial home to stay with them. After a few days, elder sister of respondent had left for Lucknow, U.P., however, the parents of the respondent had continued to live with them. It is stated that on 25/2/2012, the pregnancy of the respondent was confirmed. On 2/4/2012, the respondent had left the matrimonial home along with her parents after giving keys of the matrimonial home to the security guard in the absence of petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent had started living on rent at Pandav Nagar, Delhi secretly by changing her identity as an unmarried girl and had given incorrect false information in her tenant verification form at PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi with regard to her permanent and last residing address. It is stated that on 14/5/2012, she had filed a complaint before the ACP, CAW Cell (East) Delhi for forcible abortion and allegations of harassment for dowry, against the petitioner and his relatives which was later on, i.e. on 28/8/2012, registered as an FIR No. 0361/2012, for offences punishable under Ss. 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), at PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi. On 20/7/2012, the respondent had filed the present complaint under Sec. 12 of PWDV Act. On 31/7/2012, the respondent had also filed a complaint under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from the petitioner. It is stated that the title of application filed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C revealed that respondent had sought monthly allowance for herself and her son. It is further stated that during counseling before CAW Cell (East) Delhi on 23/6/2012, the respondent had also filed a complaint before P.S. Madhu Vihar, Delhi against petitioner and his elder brother-in-law for the purpose of their false implication under Sec. 498A of IPC. It is stated that on 20/12/2012, in response to complaint filed by the respondent under PWDV Act, he had taken a preliminary objection in the reply that the complainant had not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts and therefore, the complaint be dismissed. It is also stated that despite a lapse of 10 years, the court has not considered this vital fact and the respondent, as a dishonest litigant, has succeeded in deliberately abusing the process of law. It is stated that in spite of pending investigation in the FIR registered under Sec. 498A of IPC, she had filed another complaint under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking registration of a separate FIR or inclusion of Sec. 313 and 120B of IPC in aforesaid FIR pertaining to offence under Sec. 498A of IPC. It is stated that on 14/3/2014, the learned CMM concerned had tagged this present complaint under Sec. 210 of Cr.P.C. with the chargesheet in the aforesaid FIR for offence under Sec. 498A of IPC. It is stated that on 14/8/2014, the respondent had filed her financial affidavit before the learned Trial Court on false averments and details. Also on 14/8/2014, the police had filed a report before the learned Trial Court, after conducting detail investigation at Mumbai, with regard to false allegations of forcible abortion of respondent. It is stated that the learned Trial Court's order dtd. 17/1/2015 proves that respondent had concealed vital documents in her financial affidavit. On 18/10/2014, the petitioner had filed an application under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C against the respondent for deliberately concealing the vital material facts and documents in her financial affidavit, and then on 28/8/2015, the respondent had filed one more affidavit after filing of 340 of Cr.P.C application by petitioner. It is stated that on 7/2/2019, learned Family Court, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, had pronounced final judgment in case under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. and had awarded final monthly allowance of Rs.10,000.00 per month to the respondent. It is stated that after one year of marriage, a divorce petition was also filed by the respondent on grounds of cruelty, but the same was dismissed by the learned Family Court, Shahadra, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 4/4/2019.

(3.) It is stated that on 7/3/2020, the learned MM, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, had pronounced the final judgement in the case pertaining to FIR registered for offence under Ss. 498A/406 of IPC, and the petitioner was acquitted in the said case. It is the case of petitioner that the allegations leveled in the complaint filed under PWDV Act and the complaint under Sec. 498A of IPC are exactly same. It is stated that his application filed under Sec. 28 of PWDV Act read with Article 21 seeking to quash the proceedings under DV Act was dismissed on 6/10/2022 by the learned Trial Court vide following order: