W.P.(CRL) 1140/2022

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 21^th March, 2023

Pronounced on: 11^th April, 2023

+

W.P.(CRL) 1140/2022 & CRL.M.A. 9666/2022

DIVYA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sulan

Porwal, Ms. Sumya Dwivedi, and

Mr. Kunkum Mandhanya, Ms.

Rachana Mr. Rishabh Munjal and

Ms. Simranjeet, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the

State with Insp. Sharvan Kr. PS:

Shahbad Dairy.

Mr.Jatan Singh and Mr. Siddharth

Singh and Mr. Tushar Lamba,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

1.

By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.

339/2022, P.S. Shahbad Dairy registered under Sections 454 and 380 of

the IPC. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the

father-in-law of the petitioner for allegedly committing offences of

house trespass, house breaking and theft in the matrimonial house in

which she resided at post her marriage.

2.

The petitioner and respondent No.2 son were married on 11^th

December, 2021. The petitioner was residing in the matrimonial home

bearing house No. 137-138, 2^nd floor, A-3, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-

110085 along with her in-laws. Owing to physical, mental and emotional

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR

Signing Date:11.04.2023

12:12:25

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 1140/2022

Page 2 of 10

torture as alleged by the petitioner meted out to her by her husband and

in-laws, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (PWDV), on an

apprehension that she would be dispossessed from the shared household.

The Ld. MM vide an order dated 26^th April, 2022 granted a protection

order in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents therein from

dispossessing her from the matrimonial home without following the due

process of law. As per the petitioner when she went back to her

matrimonial home from the Court she found the doors of the house

locked and thus took refuge at her parental house for the night. On the

next day i.e. 27^th April 2022, when she went to the matrimonial home,

her husband and in-laws were present but did not allow her to enter the

house. She went to the police station to seek assistance where the SHO

asked her to wait who then went to the house to question the family.

Allegedly, when the SHO took her back to the house, the gates were

locked and the family had gone away. Having received no cooperation or

assistance from the police, she was left with no option but to use a spare

set of keys in order to enter in her matrimonial house.

3.

Later, respondent No. 2 (the father in-law) and other family

members appealed against the protection order stating that the house was

locked and the petitioner may create a law and order situation. Ld.ASJ

vide order dated 28^th April 2022 stayed the protected order of the Ld.

MM. The petitioner filed an application for vacation of stay and vide

order dated 9^th May 2022, Ld.ASJ clarified the order wherein it was

directed that respondent No. 2 and his family not to do any illegal act of

dispossessing

the

petitioner

from

the

matrimonial

household.

Immediately thereafter on 11^th May 2022 respondent No. 2 got the

instant FIR registered, which the petitioner claims is evidently a counter

blast to harass the petitioner further.

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR

Signing Date:11.04.2023

12:12:25

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 1140/2022

Page 3 of 10

4.

The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of this FIR on the basis

that the petitioner has not filed a petition against the petitioner. It is

contended that the petitioner is a legitimate member of the matrimonial

household as it is a shared household and has a right to reside. Also, she

has legitimate court orders in her favour for protection from

dispossession. In these circumstances, the question of trespass