LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-128

ROHIT VALECHA Vs. STATE

Decided On December 17, 2019
Rohit Valecha Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Ld. MM Mahila Court and order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Ld. A.S.J. upholding the order dated 06.12.2016. The petitioners also seek quashing of the FIR No.114/2012 registered at P.S. Mukherje Nagar U/s 498A/406 IPC.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 got married on 26.02.2009. The FIR in the present case was registered on 19.04.2012 on the complaint dated 28.12.2010 made by the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) to the SHO, Police Station Inderpuri, wherein she stated that she had also lodged a complaint of quarrel at No. 100 against her husband on 14.11.2010. She further stated that today (i.e. on 28.12.2010) the petitioners quarreled with her and in the presence of her in- laws her husband caught hold of both her arms various times and assaulted with legs on her stomach. Respondent No. 2 tried to save herself and ran inside a room and after locking it made a call at No. 100. Thereafter police arrived at the house and police took the respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 to the police station.

(3.) According to the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) the quarrel had taken place on that day as a defective tube light was lying in the dustbin which got broke accidently by petitioner No. 1 who asked respondent no. 2 to clean the same but respondent No. 2 said that she would clean the same after some time as at that time she was cleaning the bathroom. According to respondent No. 2 petitioner No 1 said that if she would not do it then her father would have to come and clean the area. On this respondent No. 2 asked him as to why he was bringing the name of her father in between and on this petitioner No. 1 started quarrelling with her. According to the respondent No. 2 her mother-in-law and father-in-law also came there and they also started quarrelling with respondent No. 2.