High Court dismissed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR alleging domestic violence, dowry harassment, and sexual abuse under POCSO. Court held allegations disclose offences and case does not fall within Bhajan Lal parameters.
Petition for quashing of FIR No. 218/2018 and stay of proceedings dismissed as devoid of merit.
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.
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
Reserved on: 30.09.2021
Date of Decision: 12.10.2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
DHARAMVEER SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Advocate alongwith Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Ms. Devna Soni, Mr. Ashish Garg & Mr. Siddharth Shekhar, Advocates
Versus
STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate for Complainant
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
Page 1 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
petitioner No. 2 (Nishi Sharma) are the parents of petitioner No. 3 (Sunny Sharma).
(ii) On 18.08.2018, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with the SHO, Police Station New Friends Colony, Delhi, alleging harassment and torture. It was stated in the complaint that she has been facing physical, mental, financial and emotional abuse for last 11 years. It was further alleged that she was beaten by her husband for not obeying the instructions of her father-in-law. It was also alleged that her husband forced her to do unnatural sex and on refusal she was beaten by him. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 1 (Dharamveer Sharma), i.e. the father-inlaw, had made advances at her and offered Rs.20,000/- to become his friend and not to treat him as her father-in-law. It was further stated that he used to send her late-night messages, mentioning ‘Love you soulmate’. When she informed her husband, she was physically beaten. She suspected her husband’s character and when she complained to her in-laws, they ignored. (iii) It was further stated that the husband touches the private part of the son ‘AD’ (aged 6 years) and that she never liked the way he hugged and kissed the daughter ‘AA’ (aged 10 years). It was also stated that the mother asked her son to give lip to lip kiss.
Page 2 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
but also in the mobile phones of petitioners No. 1 to 3. The minor son stated that his father used to do wrong acts with him. He further stated that petitioner No. 3 used to kiss on his cheeks with such a force that the cheeks would turn black. When he used to come out after taking a bath, his father would touch his body parts like penis and bums. It was also alleged that when he was younger and used to sleep in between his parents, his father used to put his (i.e. the child victim’s) leg in his panty.
Page 3 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
evident from the transcripts of conversations between respondent No. 2 and her parents. It is also submitted that while respondent No. 2 was living in her matrimonial home, the petitioners came across audio recordings of conversations between respondent No. 2 and her parents, which were stored in her mobile phone.
Page 4 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported as AIR 2020 SC 788 .
Page 5 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
the transcripts and hearing the recordings. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa & Another reported as 2002 SCC OnLine SC 83 to submit that the exercise of powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be in the rarest of rare case.
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
Page 6 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
“15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a
Page 7 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”
“13. What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the court can exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC. While exercising the power under the provision, the courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact.”
Page 8 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
Page 9 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE
OCTOBER 12, 2021 p’ma
Page 10 of 10
CRL.M.C. 1362/2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute cognizable offences warranting investigation.
Whether the case falls within the rare categories specified in Bhajan Lal for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the reliance on transcript conversations vitiates the allegations of sexual abuse against the children.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and OthersReferred¶24
State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and AnotherDistinguished¶26
Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another AIR 2020 SC 788 · Who else cites this
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and OthersReferred¶26
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others (2009) 1 SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Rishipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and AnotherReferred¶26
Rishipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2014) 2 SCC 215 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶32
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa & AnotherReferred¶32
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa & Another 2002 SCC OnLine SC 83 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Dharamveer Sharma and Ors.
State and Anr.
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
