RAJESH DHINGRA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 98/2003 under Section 498-A IPC registered at PS Mahila Thana, Alwar Gate Ajmer (Rajashtan). It is submitted by the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 was a government servant and working as Production Assistant in Doordarshan since 1984. He married respondent no. 4 /complainant as per Hindu rites on 11.2.2000 at Ajmer Rajasthan. The marriage was arranged through newspaper advertisement inserted by the petitioner no. 1. Petitioner in his advertisement had stated that he would prefer a girl not desiring physical relationships and even a widow/divorcee shall be suitable. Respondent no. 4 in response to advertisement claimed that she was a virgin, a qualified doctor and daughter of Mr. Justice S.N.Bhargava. The marriage was performed in Arya Samaj Mandir at Saraghana Ajmer in a simple manner. After marriage petitioner no. 1 and Respondent no. 4 stayed at Ajmer and then at Kota. Petitioner no. 1 used to take leave from his office from time to time in order to stay with Respondent no. 4. Finally, petitioner no. 1 and Respondent no. 4 came to Delhi in June, 2002 and started living in a rented accommodation at Uttam Nagar. Although respondent no. 4 had claimed that she was a virgin, but petitioners found that she was earlier married to one Shri Naresh Ginodia and had two children from the said wedlock. She was not the daughter of Justice S.N.Bhargava and was daughter of one Shri Atma Ram Aggarwal. She was not a doctor but was hardly a matric pass, but was falsely impersonating as a doctor. Respondent No. 4 started blackmailing and perpetuating cruelties on petitioner no. 1. She lodged a complaint against petitioners no. 1-3 at CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar as well as CAW Cell Nanakpura. The petitioners no. 2 and 3 moved application for anticipatory bail and vide order dated 21st June, 2003 directions were given that 05 days notice be given by the police in case they intend to arrest the petitioners no. 2 and 3. However, the CAW Cell Kirti Nagar closed the case due to the pendency of the similar proceedings before the CAW Cell Nanakpura. CAW Cell Nanakpura closed the proceedings holding that no case was made out against the petitioners and rather respondent no. 4 was treating petitioner no. 1 with cruelty. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 got the impugned false FIR registered against the petitioner no. 1 and other relatives at Ajmer (Rajasthan), in July, 2003 despite Respondent no. 4 living with petitioner no. 1 at that time when she lodged the FIR. The petitioner No.1 learnt about this FIR only when police officers from Ajmer came to PS Kirti Nagar to arrest the petitioner. Petitioner No.1 then again applied for anticipatory bail and went to Ajmer.

(2.) It is submitted that no part of the offence as alleged in FIR registered at Ajmer had been committed within the jurisdiction of PS Mahila Thana Alwar Gate, Ajmer (Rajasthan) and the respondent/wife misused the precess of law by invoking name of Justice S.N.Bhargava. The report of CAW Cell (west) has been placed on record in respect of earlier complaint of Respondent no. 4.

(3.) Respondent had also lodged an FIR No. 60/04 under Section 356 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC against petitioners no. 1 and 2 and two more persons. A report was called from Police Station in this FIR by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The report gives a detail of activities of Respondent no. 4. The Report reads as under: