$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 12.12.2023 Pronounced on: 03.01.2024 + CRL.M.C. 3310/2023 & CRL.M.A. 12416/2023 DHANESH IESHDHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person.

versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

&ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 421/2018, registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 2 on 04.09.2018, whereby she had disclosed that she was a teacher by profession and Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3310/2023 Page 1 of 9 Digitally Signed on 17.08.2018, at about 9 PM, when she had reached her home, one of her neighbours who lived opposite her house had informed her that the old lady who lived on the ground floor of the complainant’s building had told her that a lot of garbage was being thrown from the complainant’s house on the ground. The old lady had told the complainant’s neighbour her that even condoms were being thrown from the house of complainant. As mentioned in the FIR, the complainant had felt bad after hearing such things from her neighbour, that without knowing the true facts, the lady living on the ground floor had levelled such allegations against the complainant since two other families also used to live on the same side of the building. Thereafter, the complainant had gone downstairs to confront the lady as to why she had spoken such things about her. Upon being confronted by the complainant, the lady had allegedly started abusing the complainant, and in the meanwhile her son i.e. the present petitioner had come outside from the house and he had also started abusing the complainant. After seeing the behaviour of petitioner, when the complainant had started to run towards her apartment, the petitioner had grabbed the complainant from behind on the stairs. The petitioner had also allegedly pressed the chest of the complainant, and had also snatched the dupatta worn by her. Thereafter, the complainant had managed to get herself free from his clutches and rush back to her apartment on the fourth floor. It is stated that on that day, she had called the PCR but had not lodged any complaint with the police due to shame. However, the petitioner had thereafter started taunting and threatening the complainant that he Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3310/2023 Page 2 of 9 Digitally Signed was a big lawyer and he could get her and her family killed. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered. Chargesheet in the present case was filed against the petitioner Dhanesh Ieshdhan under Sections 509/506/354/354A/354B/354D/34 of IPC and his mother Kamla Devi under Sections 509/506/34 of IPC.

3. Petitioner is present in person, who states that he is a lawyer by profession and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by the petitioner that he has already got an FIR registered under Sections 506/509/34 of IPC against the complainant, her husband, her mother in law, brother of her husband and one another neighbour, and the present FIR is glaring specimen of an ‘after- thought formula’ to harass and defame the petitioner. It is submitted that in fact on 17.08.2018, at about 10 PM, the aforesaid persons had created a ruckus outside the house of petitioner and had insulted and abused him. It is argued that there is no incriminating material on record to connect him with the alleged offence. It is also argued that the incident in question had never taken place, and it is him who is the victim of abuses hurled at him by t