Dismissed

Smt Krishna & Ors. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Dec 2018W.P.(CRL)/1614/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking constitution of a special Crime Branch team and protection during intense family feuds involving multiple domestic incidents and cross-FIRs, finding no basis for such relief due to the strained relations between parties.

What did the court decide?

The prayers for constituting a special investigation team, providing protection, and taking action against police officers were dismissed.

Smt Krishna & Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1614/2018 and Crl.M.A. 9983/2018

¶4

SMT KRISHNA & ORS

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Represented by: Mr. Sudhir Batra, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS

¶9

..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Babbar, Adv. with SI Ramesh PS Sultanpuri.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶11

O R D E R % 06.12.2018

¶12

By this petition the petitioners inter alia pray for constituting a special team of the Crime Branch to investigate the whole matter between the petitioners and respondents, provide protection to the petitioners and examine the role of the officers who are not registering FIR in serious offences committed upon the petitioners.

¶13

Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.12 in the year 2012 and out of the wedlock two twin children were born. The petitioners were under constant threats of respondents No.9 to 11 and 13 who are the relatives of respondent No.12 After respondent No.12 parted company from petitioner No.1 and the real sister of petitioner W.P.(CRL) 1614/2018 page 1 of 3

¶14

No.1 i.e. Neha respondent No.9 in the present petition eloped with the brother of respondent No.12 i.e. respondent No.10, serious differences arose between the parties and a number of FIRs and cross-FIRs have been registered. Hence the prayers as noted above.

¶15

A status report has been filed. As per the status report on the complaint of Asha D/o Mohan Lal, respondent No.13 herein FIR No.150/2018 under Sections 308/354/354B/34 IPC has been registered at PS Sultanpuri and proceedings initiated against petitioners No.3 and 4 for declaring them as proclaimed offenders. Petitioners No.1, 3 & 4 and respondent No.9 are siblings and petitioner No.2 is the mother of petitioners No.1,3 & 4 and respondent No.9. Petitioner No.1 got married to respondent No.12 who after some family dispute deserted petitioner No.1. Respondent No.9 thereafter eloped with brother of respondent No.12 on which a missing report was lodged in the year 2014 followed by registration of FIR No. 513/2014 under Section 363 IPC at PS Sultanpuri by petitioner No.1. After respondent No.9 came back on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., cancellation report in the said FIR was filed. In the meantime respondent No.9 got married to respondent No.10 who is the brother of respondent No.12. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 also got registered FIR No.704/2014 under Section 363 IPC following the elopement of respondent No.9 again with respondent No.10 which FIR has already been quashed by this Court.

¶16

As per the status report the strained relations between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.12 being the bone of contention, inter-se, the parties number of complaints and FIRs have been registered from both the sides. It W.P.(CRL) 1614/2018 page 2 of 3

¶17

is stated that further on the complaint of petitioner No.2 FIR No.150/2018 under Section 354, 376, 34 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act has also been registered at PS Sultanpuri wherein grand-daughter of petitioner No.2 refused to undergo medical examination. 5. Considering the basic dispute between the parties and that due to the acrimony FIRs and cross-FIRs are being lodged, this Court finds no ground to pass directions to constitute a special investigation team of the Crime Branch or grant protection to the petitioners or take action against the respondent No.7 and 8 on the allegations of the petitioners that they are acting on the behest of respondent No.9 to 15.

¶18

Petition and application are accordingly dismissed.

¶19

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶20

DECEMBER 06, 2018 ‘ga’

¶21

page 3 of 3

¶22

W.P.(CRL) 1614/2018

Smt Krishna & Ors. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Krishna & Ors. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Shankar Sharma & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Suraj & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State

Lomas Rishi Gupta & Ors. Vs Ms. Tanupriya Gupta & Anr.

Vinay Kumar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ankit Jain Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Subhjit Banarjee & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Neeraj Sharma Vs State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Nikhil Suri Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State

Habibur Rehman Vs State ( NCT of Delhi)

Mushtaq Ahmed Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajkumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)