Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.@mdashBy means of this petition, the petitioner Vijay Anand Sharma has challenged the filing of chargesheet No. 8/12 dated 2.2.2012 for the offence of Section 498A of IPC and the order of cognizance passed thereon by the learned Magistrate on dated 30.3.2012. He has also prayed for quashing of the order of learned Magistrate whereby the application of the police seeking permission for further investigation in the matter has been rejected. Facts of the case are that Smt. Nandini Sharma wedded with the petitioner on 9.3.1999 as a result of the courtship between the duo. Their matrimonial relations blossomed with the result that they were blessed with a son on 12.9.2003. Since Mr. Sharma was a Police Inspector in Delhi Police and somehow he turned to be a lawyer in some local district of Delhi city, so, inter alia, his busy schedule was one of the causes for making sour the relations between the couple. The attitude of Mr. Sharma gradually attained the extreme cruelty impelling Smt. Nandini Sharma to leave her husband on 6.6.2009. The poor lady was constrained to return to the home of her mother at Rajpur Road, Dehradun city. This address has been adverted by her mother Smt. Manjeet Sandhu as well as her brother Rupendra Sandhu in their statements recorded by the Investigation Officer on 9.10.2011 pursuant to the FIR lodged by Smt. Nandini Sharma against her husband on dated 17.9.2011. The FIR, Annexure No. 13 to the petition, is an alarming long tale of tormented and treacherous conduct in as much as urinating in her mouth after tying her legs, this lady was compelled to tolerate at the hands of her husband while living with him in her matrimonial house.
2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon a number of precedents propounded by the Hon''ble Apex Court from time to time highlighting the scope of exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Courts, but it would not be in the fitness of things to mention the plethora of all those judgments and to burden the decision of this Court. Suffice it to say that in a Full Bench Judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in
3. So, in view of the well-settled law as has been indicated above, this Court is not supposed to enter into the merits of each and every aspect of the dispute between the parties very scrupulously. However, looking to the papers towards which the attention of this Court has been drawn by the learned Counsel of the petitioner, I would like to refer them as under. 5. Learned Counsel of the petitioner has highlighted the letter dated 25.7.2008 written by Smt. Nandini Sharma to the SHO, Malviya Nagar Police Station, New Delhi (Annexure 4 to the petition) depicting the admission of Smt. Nandini Sharma herself that she had settled her disputes with her husband amicably and did not have any complaint of whatsoever nature against him. In the same letter, she informed that she wants to pass rest of her life separately and independently with her mother at her native place i.e., Ponta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. This letter was left by the victim to the SHO on 25.7.2008, but again she came to reside with her husband in Delhi and that is why in the FIR lodged on 17.9.2011, she had once again indicated the leaving of her husband''s home on 6.6.2009. The Court can discern that subsequent to 25.7.2008, after passing few days with her mother, she had returned to her husband''s home, as we all can understand that after the marriage, and that too out of courtship, parental house of a lady remains very much reluctant to accept her again even after being dejected from her husband. However, the circumstances she underwent were so cruel to the core that she was constrained to leave the house of her husband again on 6.6.2009 and came to live in mother''s house at Rajpur Road, Dehradun. She lived there and having searched, found the job of a schoolteacher in Mussoorie , which is located at a short distance from Dehradun, but there too she was not permitted to pass on her days peacefully. Very often, the husband used to come there and create the trouble including beating of her in front of the school staff and others. Ultimately, she had no option, but to lodge the FIR, which has culminated into submission of the chargesheet under challenge.
4. The other papers like Annexure 7 to the petition, cannot help the petitioner for the reason that these are the excerpts of few pleadings of a divorce petition filed by Smt. Nandini Sharma in the Court of District Judge, Delhi. Full pleadings have not been filed so that the allegations levelled for the demand of divorce may become explicit.
5. Annexure No. 10 is again a letter to the SHO by Smt. Nandini Sharma dated 29.7.2011, which informs that since she had a fight with her mother and brother, hence she returned to the home of her husband on 29.7.2011 at around 5 AM without any information to him. But this letter again manifests the helplessness of the unfortunate lady, who was not accepted by her husband even after two years of residing with her mother and was not permitted to enter into the house. So, she had no course to defend her modesty but to return to Dehradun. Since her continuous living in her mother''s house was not at all liked resulting into the quarrels, so she had no other place but to take shelter in a women rehabilitation centre run by an NGO, namely, ''SAMADHAN'' at Dehradun city and resumed her life of teaching at Mussoorie , and later on being beaten in Mussoorie itself by her husband, she lodged this FIR.
6. It appears that entire facts have not been produced by the petitioner here and this poor lady did not have even the little means to run from pillar to post and to engage a lawyer to defend her travelling all alone to Nainital and put up her case before this Court, but it is apparent that sometime after lodging of the FIR against him, the petitioner managed to throw acid on this lady and when the FIR was lodged against him for this devilish evil act, then he rushed up to the High Court for getting arrest stay order. On failure to get such an order made him to manage the things and he ensured the closure of the case at the hands of the police and that is why the Criminal Writ Petition No. 912/2012, which was perhaps for seeking the arrest stay, was dismissed as being infructuous by this High Court on 18.4.2013 (Annexure 1 of the supplementary affidavit).
7. Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards Annexure 16 of the petition wherein the script discloses that on 16.7.2011, when the incident of beating to Smt. Nandini Sharma in her school by her husband happened, she herself did not come to the school. This paper is quite inadmissible in the Court because it does not disclose as to by whom this letter has been given to the SHO of Rajpur Police Station. No address at all has been written by any person, much less the legible signatures.
8. Learned Counsel of the petitioner has also taken this Court towards the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Manjeet Sandhu, Rupendra Sandhu, both recorded on 9.10.2011 as well as the statements of Lalita Kapoor, recorded on 30.11.2011, and Km. Nandini Khatri recorded on 26.10.2011. All these statements have been filed as Annexure No. 21 to the petition. These statements do not help the petitioner. The reason is that Smt. Nandini Sharma has already indicated in her letter dated 29.7.2011, which was written prior to these statements (supra), that she had a fight with her mother and brother and that is why when this lady did not have any house to live either with her husband or with her mother, then she had no other way but to take shelter in a women rehabilitation centre. It can significantly be noted that the statements of the victim and of any staff of the school including Principal or Teacher have not been produced by petitioner obviously to obviate the risk of being found complicit in the incident.
9. This Court has also been taken to the ex parte divorce judgment in favour of the petitioner from the Delhi Court. Again, it is of no use for Mr. Sharma because it cannot pave his way to escape from the prosecution under Section 498A of IPC for his cruel conduct towards his wife before this ex parte decree of divorce. Further the Court can imagine the helplessness of this lady to contest the case at Delhi Court because when her person or modesty was so vulnerable even in Dehradun or Mussoorie (a remote place from Delhi) then how could''ve been safe in Delhi while contesting litigation against her mighty husband.
10. I do not see any infirmity in the order of the Judicial Magistrate in rejecting the application of the police for further investigation in the matter because it smells the ulterior motive as a result of managing the things by the petitioner being an ex police officer.
11. I feel that the filing of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sharma is an attempt to elude from his prosecution for his fiendish conduct towards his wife Smt. Nandini Sharma. It will be neither in the fitness of things nor in the interest of justice to enter very meticulously on each and every aspect of the evidence as the same, if done by this Court, will leave nothing for the trial court to adjudicate.
12. This petition is utterly bereft of any merit and is dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registry to Judicial Magistrate I, District Court, Dehradun, who is directed to expedite the prosecution by ensuring the attendance of the accused petitioner and there will be no hesitation on the part of the Trial Magistrate to take the coercive measures to accomplish the speedy trial in view of the gravity of the matter.
