Scribd
Upload
8 views

CASE REPORT

Uploaded by

Rajni Porwal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views

CASE REPORT

Uploaded by

Rajni Porwal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

CASE REPORT

FAMILY LAW-I

Name of the Student


VASUNDHRA PORWAL
Enrolment No. – 06216503829
Batch: 2021-26

Under the Supervision of


Prof. Vani Prakash
Faculty of Family Law-I

Case Title
Ashtha Narang vs Gaurav Bhasin
CRL.M.A. 19506/2011 III Citations

University School of Law and Legal Studies

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASHTHA UNIVERSITY


Ashtha Narang vs Gaurav Bhasin
Facts of the Case
1. 07.07.2007 – Marriage between Petitioner/Wife and Respondent/Husband was
solemnized.
2. 23.10.2007 - The respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner
with cruelty).
3. 17.04.2008 - The petitioner made a complaint to CAW Cell (Crime Against
Women) stating therein that she has been subjected to cruelty on account of non-
fulfilment of demand of dowry and she was also forced to return of Istridhan etc.
4. 19.08.2008 - The CAW Cell closed the complaint.
5. 11.11.2009 - The respondent filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
(Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or
attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any
material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence) for
commission of alleged offence under Section 211 of IPC (False charge of offence
made with intent to injure.—Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person,
institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or
falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is
no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both) before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate.
6. 29.05.2010 - The petition filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage was
accepted and a decree of divorce was granted by the court of learned Additional
District Judge.
7. 24.08.2011 - The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned order directed for
issuance of summons against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under
Section 211 of IPC which was served on the petitioner on 27.11.2011.
8. 25.10.2013 - The petition was admitted and directed to be listed in the category of
'Regulars' in due course.
9. 06.09.2022 - The matter was directed to be listed for hearing.
Issues
 Whether the learned Magistrate has committed any error while issuing summons
under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. (Saving of inherent powers of High Court-Nothing in this
Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice)
to the petitioner and whether there exists any prima facie case to proceed against the
petitioner or not?
 Whether the filing of a complaint before CAW Cell by petitioner would constitute any
offence of initiation of criminal proceedings under Sec.211 Cr.P.C.?

Contentions of both Parties


PETITIONER
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order for
issuance of summons is absolutely perverse. The same is in violation of the settled legal
position, in as much as, filing of a complaint before CAW Cell would not constitute any
offence of initiation of criminal proceedings and hence, no offence at all under Section 211 of
IPC is attracted. According to him, even if the entire allegation made in the complaint is
accepted, the fact that would remain to be considered is that there was no FIR at all registered
against the respondent.

RESPONDENT
Respondent opposes the prayer made in the petition. He submits that the mandate of law does
not require for registration of an FIR or for institution of a case in the court of law. According
to him as per law before taking up the matter to the concerned police station, it is incumbent
upon the victim to first approach the Crime Against Women Cell. While referring to various
paragraphs of the complaint, he submits that the offence under Section 211 of IPC is prima-
facie made out.
Latest findings by the Delhi High Court
 Just after two days of the marriage, the petitioner eloped with her friend Sunny.
 It is seen from the record that on 16.07.2007 an officer from Police Station Kirti
Nagar informed the respondent that the petitioner had returned to her parental house
and accordingly the respondent attended the police station on 17.07.2007. On
17.07.2007, the petitioner was present at the Police Station and she refused to join the
respondent and in the presence of members of both the families she signed settlement
agreeing therein that all dowry articles were to be taken back by her, which was done
on 17.07.2007 itself and she would continue to live with Sunny and shall marry him.
 She, thereafter filed a maintenance petition. However, the same was dismissed on
16.04.2009. It is seen that despite the fact that she entered into a settlement, she filed a
complaint before CAW cell on 17.04.2008 alleging therein that the respondent and in-
laws are harassing the petitioner on account of non- fulfilment of demand of dowry.
However, the said complaint after inquiry was closed by CAW cell on 19.08.2008.
 It is also to be noted that a decree of divorce was granted at the instance of
respondent vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2010 where the court had given a
categorical finding that the petitioner was having an affair with Sunny and she did not
live with the respondent and the marriage was not consummated.

Reasons for dismissing the petition filed by wife under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
I. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated
24.08.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
whereby, the learned Magistrate has directed for issuance of summons against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 211 of IPC in a complaint case
filed by the respondent.
II. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV quoted the case of
Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, which was decided by Supreme Court, to consider
the scope and ambit of Section 211 of the IPC. This case held that to attract the
provision of Section 211 of IPC is that there has to be a charge having known that
there is no just lawful ground for making a charge against the person concerned. The
complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. In other
words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of cognizable offence
to the police officer or an officer having the authority over the person against whom
the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the charges should be
made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion.
The Magistrate by impugned order, after considering latest findings mentioned above,
has noted the entire circumstances and found that the petitioner had made complaint
with an intention and object to set criminal law in motion knowing well that the
allegations made in the complaint are false. Such an act was done with an intent to
injure the respondent and, therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded
that prima-facie case for issuance of summons for commission of offence under
Section 211 of IPC is made out.
CONCLUSION
Even though the wife in given has not registered a FIR in police station and made the
complaint before CAW Cell, she has set the criminal proceedings in motion against her
husband. She eloped with her lover and married him after her divorce with the respondent.
She got all the dowry back and both the parties reached a settlement. She put wrong
allegations against respondent and his family and filed a case for maintenance which later got
dismissed. All these facts point that by registering the complaint before CAW, she has made
false allegations with no lawful grounds against respondent with the intention to injure his
reputation and harass him. The court was right for issuing summons for commission of
offence under Section 211 of IPC and setting aside petition filed under Section 487 of Cr.P.C.

You might also like