CHET SINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Counsel for the complainant, though the complainant is not a party.

(2.) I have heard the parties. The present petition has arisen out of a fresh complaint lodged by the complainant wife of the younger son of the petitioner. It is pointed out that even earlier in 1987, this lady had lodged a complaint with the Crime against Women Cell levelling allgations to make out offences under Sections 498-A/506/406, Indian Penal Code but the Police as a result of the investigations found that no case is made out under Section 406 and a challan was filed under Sections 498-A and 506 only. In the course of the proceedings, before the Court it is stated that some understanding was reached between the parties, as a consequence whereof the allegations against the petitioner were withdrawn by the complainant and she had resiled from her earlier statements, which resulted in acquittal of the petitioner by the Court on 20.3.1989. It is further stated at the Bar that the complainant and her husband even in 1989 had been living separately from the petitioner and there had been no connection or interaction between them. After the aroreseid acquittal there was no cause for complaint till June, 1996. Suddenly, thereafter in July, 1996, it is alleged that the same daughter-in-law complainant approached some influential person and got a complaint lodged against the petitioner under Section 406. The allegations were earlier investigated and it was found that no offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code was made out. Thereafter, earlier case under Section 498-A and Section 506, IPC had progressed and resulted in acquittal. It is not disputed and, in fact, conceded that the complainant and her husband have been staying separately even during the pendency of the earlier case.

(3.) In the light of these facts, nothing has been shown to me wherefrom any entrustment subsequent to the earlier acquittal in 1989 or even during the pendency of the earlier proceedings had taken place. Admittedly, the complainant had not been staying with the petitioner and the relations between the petitioner on the one hand and the complainant and her husband on the other hand have not been cordial. This can be inferred from a publication of a notice in the press copy whereof has been placed on the file, by the petitioner disinheriting the complainant's husband from his self-acquired properties.