CRL.M.C.--137/2015. Case: NEERA MAHAJAN @ NEERA MALIK Vs. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.M.C.--137/2015 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | July 07, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 7th July, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 137/2015
NEERA MAHAJAN @ NEERA MALIK ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Medanshu Tripathi and Mr. Satish Rana, Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
& ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State with SI Rakesh Kumar, PS-Dwarka South.
Respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ CRL.M.C. 137/2015
-
Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of chargesheet in case FIR No. 90/2014 registered at PS-Dwarka (South) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406 IPC.
-
Further seeks quashing of impugned order dated 08.09.2014 passed by ld. MM, Dwarka Court whereby the cognizance in the chargesheet was taken and the petitioner was summoned.
-
Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that initially accused no. 1 / son of the petitioner and the complainant selected each other for marriage. Their relations continued for six months and the marriage took place between them in Arya Samaj Mandir, Greater Kailash-I, thereafter.
-
Ld. Counsel further submits that complainant stayed with the petitioner in her matrimonial home only for a day. Thereafter, she left for her parental house and the son of the petitioner left for USA. There was no interaction between the petitioner and the complainant thereafter except through phone calls and e-mails. Therefore, the case registered against the petitioner under Sections 498A/406 IPC does not make out. Moreover, the petitioner has made a complaint against the IO of the case in the Police Vigilance Department. The Vigilance enquiry is still going on and the same is at the advance stage. If something comes against the IO then the FIR mentioned above will have no meaning in the present case.
-
The fact remains that initially FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC was lodged against the petitioner and her son / accused no.1. During investigation, Section 417 IPC was also added. Accordingly, police filed the chargesheet and the same is pending for framing of the charges.
-
On perusal of the chargesheet, which is also a part of the judicial file, it is revealed that there are allegations against the petitioner that the complainant entrusted Articles to the petitioner,
which she has not returned to complainant till date. Accused no. 1/son of the petitioner was a divorcee and this fact was not disclosed either by the petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial