Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3 (DEL)

URMIL RAWAL v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2008-01-04

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2008
JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners viz., Dr. S.L. Dhawan, Ms. Urmil Rawal (daughter of Dr. S.L. Dhawan) and Sameer Rawal son of Ms. Urmil Rawal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying for quashing of FIR No. 699 of 1996 and to give directions to respondent No. 3 to stop the inquiry on the complaint of Ms. Meena Dhawan and to proceed against Mr. S.K. Dhawan and Ms. Meena Dhawan for lodging false reports. 2. Ms. Meena Dhawan and Mr. S.K. Dhawan were daughter-in-law and son of the petitioner No.1 (petitioner No1 died during pendency of instant writ petition). They lodged a complaint with Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR. This complaint was sent for inquiry/investigation to the police. Ms. Meena Dhawan had also lodged a report with Crime Against Women Cell (CAW) against the three petitioners and an FIR No. 699 of 1996 was registered on the basis of this complaint under Section 406 of IPC. The petitioners sought quashing of this FIR. 3. In the FIR 699 of 1996 Ms. Meena Dhawan stated that she was married to Mr. S.K. Dhawan in November, 1975 and had started residing on the first floor of premises No. 45A/II, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law were also living in the same house. At the time of marriage, she had brought dowry articles (enumerated in her complaint). She stated that at the time of marriage, grand-parents of her husband were also living in the joint family. Her husband was the only son of his parents. The petitioner No.2 had obtained divorce from her husband and was living along with her son at the above premises. Thereafter Ms. Meena Dhawan made allegations regarding property and stated that civil suits were filed. She stated that Civil Court had granted an order for maintaining a status quo in respect of the property bearing No. 45A/2, Lajpat Nagar. However, the petitioners, despite status quo order, stopped her entry and entry of her husband and daughter into the house. They also did not allow her to take and remove items of Istridhan as well as goods belonging to her husband. However, the petitioners, despite status quo order, stopped her entry and entry of her husband and daughter into the house. They also did not allow her to take and remove items of Istridhan as well as goods belonging to her husband. She alleged that the petitioners were in illegal custody of her Istridhan and they dishonestly and malafidely not only retained her Istridhan but also put Istridhan to their own use. Since the three petitioners were having entrustment and custody and possession of her dowry articles and Istridhan, they were guilty of offence under Section 406 of IPC. She averred that the dowry articles were brought by her at the time of her marriage and were entrusted to the petitioners for safe custody and later on the accused persons/petitioners refused to return these dowry articles and Istridhan. Similar allegations were levelled against the petitioners in the criminal complaint lodged by respondents before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 4. The learned MM directed for an inquiry and asked police to submit a report after investigation. A report was submitted by the police. In its report police stated that Dr. S.K. Dhawan wanted to grab the property of his father by legal and illegal means and he wanted to throw out his sister from the property by threatening her and terrorizing her. It was also stated that he was not on speaking terms with his father and sister. He has been filing baseless complaints and cases against his father and sister. Regarding entrustment, the investigation revealed that accused Sameer Rawal named by the complainant, was not even born at the time of her marriage. 5. Ms. Meena Dhawan was married in November 1975 and the petitioner Samir Rawal was born in November, 1976. The question of entrusting any Istridhan to Samir Rawal could not have arisen as he was not even born. But he has been made as one of the accused by the complainant Ms. Meena Dhawan in her complaint. The complaint qua Ms. Vrmil Rawal was blatantly false as no entrustment could be made to her as well, as she was not living in the house of her parents at that time. A complaint filed by Mr. S.K. Dhawan with the Police Station, Lajpat Nagar on 19th February, 1995, which is part of record, would show that Ms. The complaint qua Ms. Vrmil Rawal was blatantly false as no entrustment could be made to her as well, as she was not living in the house of her parents at that time. A complaint filed by Mr. S.K. Dhawan with the Police Station, Lajpat Nagar on 19th February, 1995, which is part of record, would show that Ms. Vrmila Rawal was living at her matrimonial home at the time of marriage of the complainant Ms. Meena Dhawan in November, 1975. She had obtained divorce from her husband in 1977-78 i.e. after about 3 years of the marriage of the complainant. In his complaint dated 19th February, 1995 Mr. S.K. Dhawan made no allegations that Istridhan was entrusted to Ms. Vrmila Rawal. The allegations made against her were that she continued to create an atmosphere of unpleasantness in the family and was continuously poisoning the mind of his mother, his father, her own son i.e. petitioner No.3. No allegations were made in February 1995 that she was entrusted dowry articles, at any point of time. She could not have been entrusted dowry articles and Istridhan in 1975 when marriage of the complainant Ms. Meena Dhawan had taken place, because she was not living in the parental house and was living at her matrimonial house. She had started living at her parents house in 1977-78 even as per the complaint of Mrs. S.K. Dhawan. 6. The petitioner No.1 has already died and it has to be kept in mind that the petitioner No. 1 had disowned his son Mr. S.K. Dhawan because of his conduct and attitude towards him. The differences between father and son had arisen long back sometime in 90s. It seems that respondent Mr. S.K. Dhawan wanted exclusive possession of property bearing No. 45A, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. Though he was living in Greater Kailash in the property bearing No. E-283, Creater Kailash- II for past around 9/10 years, but in 1987 he made allegations that he was living in property bearing No. 45A, Lajpat Nagar-II. In Civil Suit No. 1649 of 1994 filed before the Civil Judge, Mr.S.K. Dhawan had claimed that possession of the house was with him and prayed for appointing a Local Commissioner for preparing inventory of the articles lying there. However, the Civil Judge found the averments false and dismissed the application vide his order dated 1st June, 1995. In Civil Suit No. 1649 of 1994 filed before the Civil Judge, Mr.S.K. Dhawan had claimed that possession of the house was with him and prayed for appointing a Local Commissioner for preparing inventory of the articles lying there. However, the Civil Judge found the averments false and dismissed the application vide his order dated 1st June, 1995. The appeal against that order was also dismissed. The Court observed that the plaintiff S.K. Dhawan had failed to point out as to what articles were lying in the premises which he claimed belonged to him. It is obvious that at the time of moving to Greater Kailash he had taken away all his household goods with him. It is also writ large that the complaints and FIR were got registered by respondents Mr. S.K. Dhawan and Ms. Meena Dhawan on the basis of totally baseless and wrong facts alleging entrustment to an unborn child and to the petitioner No.2 who was living in her matrimonial house at that time, just to wreck vengeance and harass them. 7. The petitioner No. 1, who is no more, had alleged that he was beaten up by respondent S.K. Dhawan and an FIR being No. 257 of 1995 was registered against him. The other important fact is that when father of Mr. S.K. Dhawan was struggling for his life in the hospital, Mr. S.K. Dhawan filed a false writ petition being No. 294 of 1998 before the Division Bench of this Court claiming that treatment to his father was not being given properly. The Division Bench of this Court examined all facts and passed structures against Mr. S.K. Dhawan vide order dated 6th May, 1998 observing that though it was a fit case where cost should have been imposed on the petitioner (respondent S.K. Dhawan herein) but this Court deviated from doing so because the parties were relatives of each other and the ailing father has become subject matter of controversy for no fault of his own. 8. Petitioner No.1 i.e. father of Mr. S.K. Dhawandied on 1st June, 1998. Before he could be cremated in the cremation ground Mr. S.K. Dhawan got issued a certificate of cremation of his father even before the body reached at cremation ground, by misleading the Manager and Poojari of cremation ground. A copy of certificate so obtained by Mr. S.K. Dhawan is on record. S.K. Dhawandied on 1st June, 1998. Before he could be cremated in the cremation ground Mr. S.K. Dhawan got issued a certificate of cremation of his father even before the body reached at cremation ground, by misleading the Manager and Poojari of cremation ground. A copy of certificate so obtained by Mr. S.K. Dhawan is on record. Later on when the body reached at cremation ground, the Manager of cremation ground and Poojari were shocked and the certificate issued to Mr. S.K. Dhawan was cancelled and a fresh certificate was issued about cremation. The effort to obtain the cremation certificate by such means by Mr. S.K. Dhawan was only to see that the property of his father could be grabbed by him. 9. In the present case, the FIR and the complaints of the complainant were actuated by mala fide against the petitioners. The complaint is based on facts which are totally false. The petitioner No. 1/ father of S.K. Dhawan has already died. Petitioner No.2 is the sister who was not living in the house of her parents till March 1978 and the marriage of the complainant had taken place in 1975. Till 1995/ the complainant had not said a word about entrustment of Istridhan to petitioner No.2. He only made a complaint that petitioner No.2 was interested in the property of his father. Petitioner No.3 was not even born when the marriage of the complainant took place, but he has been made an accused of entrustment of the dowry and Istridhan. It is obvious that the complainant and her husband both have used criminal justice system as a tool to fulfil their evil designs. It was a blatant misuse of the provisions of criminal law. The complaints and FIR were filed just to harass the petitioners without any basis or truthfulness. Police investigation also revealed these complaints to be false. 10. In view of my foregoing discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the FIR No. 699 of 1996 and the complaint No. 67/1 dated 10th April, 1996/ filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 384/403/404 read with Section 34 of IPC and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.