$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27^th February, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 671/2021 MOHAN LAL A-301, Meghdoot Apartments, Plot -19, Sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi - 110075 .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person.

Versus

1. STATE OF G.N.C.T. OF DELHI Through Chief Secretary, G.N.C.T. of Delhi, 5^th Level, Delhi Secretariat, Delhi – 110002.

2. MANJU AGGARWAL W/o Sh. Bal Kishan Aggarwal IInd Floor, 70-Tagore Park (near Model Town), Delhi-110009.

3. BAL KISHAN AGGARWAL S/o Late Sh. Sat Narain Aggarwal, IInd Floor, 70-Tagore Park (Near Model Town), Delhi-110009.

4. BHARAT AGGARWAL S/o Sh. Bal Kishan Aggarwal IInd Floor, 70-Tagore Park (near Model Town), Delhi-110009.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Ld. APP for the State with SI Sanjeeta P.S.

Mukherjee Nagar.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ranjan, Advocate for R-2 to 4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C‟ hereinafter) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the Order dated 19.12.2019 of learned ASJ upholding the Order of the learned ACMM dated 14.05.2018 whereby the Complaint Case No.CC 1925/2017 for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 182/211/107/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ hereinafter), had been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the Respondent No.2-Manju Aggarwal is the mother- in-law of Priyanka Aggarwal who is the daughter of the Petitioner/Complainant-Mohan Lal. On 17.02.2006, Sandeep Aggarwal, son of Respondent No.2-Manju Aggarwal in the company of his mother and many other persons, sent Priyanka Aggarwal to the Complainant and his wife, by making a promise that within ten days he would take her back to the matrimonial home. Instead of taking her back, he filed a Case against Priyanka Aggarwal in Tis Hazari Courts, which was dismissed in default on

15.11.2007.

3. On 18.11.2008, the Complainant-Mohan Lal was going towards House of the Advocate in Tagore Park and as he passed by the house of the Respondent, he was forcibly held by the younger son of Manju Aggarwal, who along with others, manhandled him and tore off the pocket of his shirt. The Police was called and both the parties were taken to Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, where the Respondent No. 2 in consultation with others, knowingly gave false information to the SHO to use his lawful powers against the Petitioner. The Complainant Shri Mohan Lal as well as the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Respondent No. 2 were got medically examined at HR Hospital. The pieces of his shirt were handed over by the Petitioner and he had also given the details about the offence committed upon him. However, since the Petitioner/Complainant did not want to disturb the matrimonial relationship, he did not take any action against the Respondents or approach any Court.

4. However, the Respondent made a false Complaint against the Petitioner under Section 323/448/452/501/506 IPC. On the Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, FIR was directed to be registered against the Petitioner by the Order of the Court. Consequently, FIR was registered and after investigations, the Chargesheet has been filed.

5. The Petitioner thus, filed the Complaint Case No.CC 1925/2017 for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 182/211/107/34 IPC, on the assertions that in view of the statements of the independent witnesses, it is clear that an offence under Section 182/211/107/34 IPC has been committed by the Respondents.

6. In support of his Complaint, he examined himself as CW1 and proved various documents.

7. The learned ACMM observed that a similar Complaint on same facts dated 11.05.2018 had been filed earlier before learned CMM, Central and was assigned to learned M.M who declined to take cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC by observing that it is only after the conclusion of the trial in the cross FIR No.302/2008 that