The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a married couple seeking protection from alleged threats of honor killing. The Court found that the petitioners had materially concealed their actual residence and presented incorrect facts, leading to the conclusion that the counsel was attempting to mislead the Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~44
Versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with SI Avinash Kumar, PS Farsh Bazar.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 14.03.2018 Crl.M.A. No. 4744/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 757/2018
Petitioners who are present in Court state that they are major and have married of their own free will contrary to the wishes of respondent No. 3, father of petitioner No. 1 and seek protection.
Though in the petition, the residence of the petitioners has been mentioned as B-11, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi, on a query put by this Court to the petitioners they fairly stated that they are residing at Indirapuram, Uttar Pradesh in the matrimonial home with the maternal grandfather of petitioner No. 2. They further admit that D-11, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi is not their W.P.(CRL) 757/2018 page 1 of 3
residence but place of work and apprehend their safety at that place.
Paras 6 & 7 of the petition which is supported by the affidavits of the petitioners reads as under:-
6. That on the same day i.e. 12.03.2018 at around 2:00pm, the petitioner no. 1 informed to respondent no. 3 by telephonic cell about her marriage and adoption the Hindu Religion but in reply petitioner no. 1 get threat honor killing. The respondent no. 3 says to petitioner no. 1, “ As the govt. of the BJP is the Hindus with solemnized the marriage with our daughter where found we cut”. The petitioner immediate approach to the PS. Farsh Bazar for help, but they refuse to help without court order also not takes the complaint against the respondent no. 3.
7. That on same day i.e. 12.03.2018 at 5:00p, the respondent no. 3 with some other persons attack on the matrimonial house of the petitioners and threat for honor killing. The petitioners approached the concerned police authorities, but the police officers is not ready to here anything.
It is thus apparent that in the petition on affidavit petitioners have stated incorrect facts and represented that B-11, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi is their matrimonial home.
Further when this Court put a query to the petitioners as to when did respondent No. 3 or any of his accomplice come to threaten them, petitioner No. 2 fairly stated that he apprehended that they would be coming on 12th March, 2018 when the two petitioners got married contrary to their wishes.
A perusal of the contents of the petition and typed copy of the complaint placed on record at page 27 to 29, original copy whereof has not been placed on record are also contradictory.
W.P.(CRL) 757/2018
page 2 of 3
Considering the fact that there are material concealment of facts and this Court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to mislead the Court, present petition is dismissed.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MARCH 14, 2018 ‘yo’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 757/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present petition maintained when the petitioners concealed material facts regarding their actual residence.
Whether the Court should dismiss the petition if the counsel is attempting to mislead the Court by misstating facts.
Whether the averments regarding threat to honor killing were correctly supported by the evidence on record.
Akansha & Anr
The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
