Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1043 (DEL)

RATTAN KUMAR GOEL v. STATE

2009-09-24

V.K.SHALI

body2009
JUDGMENT Crl.M.C. No. 2775/2009 & Crl. M.A. No. 9388/2009 V.K. Shali, J.- This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 335/2005 registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla under Sections 498A/406/34, IPC. 2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR is that the respondent No. 2/ complainant has started living with her husband/ respondent No.3 since 3.9.2008. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the orders dated 12.9.2008,24.3.2009 and 14.7.2009 of the Trial Court where the matter is pending. It was during the pendency of the State case titled State v. P. Kumar, the fact that, the parties i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had reconciled their differences and time was sought for moving the High Court for the purpose of quashing of the FIR. It has been contended by the learned Counsel that despite more than a year having elapsed, steps were not taken to get the FIR quashed though the respondent No.2 had withdrawn all the other complaints. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the light of these facts, FIR may be quashed. 4. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and is duly identified by her Counsel. On inquiry, the respondent No.2 has stated that FIR may not be quashed at this stage as she would like to wait for another year or so before she makes a statement for quashing of FIR. The reason given by the respondent No.2 for this is that the petitioners were allegedly instigating her husband and her in-laws who are respondents 3 to 5 and subjecting the respondent No.2 to demand of dowry and the consequent cruelty. 5. I have considered the respective submissions as well as the stand taken by respondent No.2. 6. The fact of the matter is that the respondent No.2 as on date is living with her husband/respondent No, 2. She had gone back to her matrimonial home more than a year ago and has been living there without any complaint in this regard till date. Further, during the course of pendency of the trial in respect of FIR in question, it has been stated before the learned trial Judge that the aforesaid. FIR in shall be quashed and a petition in this regard will be filed in the High Court. Further, during the course of pendency of the trial in respect of FIR in question, it has been stated before the learned trial Judge that the aforesaid. FIR in shall be quashed and a petition in this regard will be filed in the High Court. Despite all these facts, neither the petition was filed nor any grievance with regard to the conduct of the either of respondents 3 to 5 or that of the petitioner was ever made by the respondent No.2 after 3.9.2008. 7. The factum that respondent No.2 docs not want the FIR to be quashed at this stage is totally whimsical and revengeful and accordingly cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, continuance of the present FIR and the consequent trial qua the petitioner is a gross abuse of the processes of law. 8. For these reasons, I quash the FIR No. 335/2005 registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla under Sections 498A /406/34, IPC and the consequent trial which has been initiated against the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 by respondent No.2. However, this may not be treated as a licence to any of the petitioners or respondents 3 to 5 to indulge in any offence qua the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall be free to lodge a fresh report if she is subjected to any demand of dowry and the consequent cruelty by her husband or his relations. 9. With these directions, the petition is treated as disposed of. Petition disposed of.