VIJAY ANAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner Vijay Anand Sharma has challenged the filing of chargesheet No. 8/12 dated 2.2.2012 for the offence of Section 498A of IPC and the order of cognizance passed thereon by the learned Magistrate on dated 30.3.2012. He has also prayed for quashing of the order of learned Magistrate whereby the application of the police seeking permission for further investigation in the matter has been rejected. Facts of the case are that Smt. Nandini Sharma wedded with the petitioner on 9.3.1999 as a result of the courtship between the duo. Their matrimonial relations blossomed with the result that they were blessed with a son on 12.9.2003. Since Mr. Sharma was a Police Inspector in Delhi Police and somehow he turned to be a lawyer in some local district of Delhi city, so, inter alia, his busy schedule was one of the causes for making sour the relations between the couple. The attitude of Mr. Sharma gradually attained the extreme cruelty impelling Smt. Nandini Sharma to leave her husband on 6.6.2009. The poor lady was constrained to return to the home of her mother at Rajpur Road, Dehradun city. This address has been adverted by her mother Smt. Manjeet Sandhu as well as her brother Rupendra Sandhu in their statements recorded by the Investigation Officer on 9.10.2011 pursuant to the FIR lodged by Smt. Nandini Sharma against her husband on dated 17.9.2011. The FIR, Annexure No. 13 to the petition, is an alarming long tale of tormented and treacherous conduct in as much as urinating in her mouth after tying her legs, this lady was compelled to tolerate at the hands of her husband while living with him in her matrimonial house.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon a number of precedents propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time highlighting the scope of exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Courts, but it would not be in the fitness of things to mention the plethora of all those judgments and to burden the decision of this Court. Suffice it to say that in a Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 259, it was held that inherent jurisdiction though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. It may be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist, but said powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and the court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where entire facts are incomplete and hazy. More so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Thus, no hard -and -fast rule can be laid down for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE other papers like Annexure 7 to the petition, cannot help the petitioner for the reason that these are the excerpts of few pleadings of a divorce petition filed by Smt. Nandini Sharma in the Court of District Judge, Delhi. Full pleadings have not been filed so that the allegations levelled for the demand of divorce may become explicit.