Crl. M.C. No. 3710/2007

Page 1 of 30

“REPORTABLE”

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl.M.C. 3710/2007

Date of decision: February 06, 2009

#

GEETIKA BATRA

...... Petitioner

!

Through : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Sheel Kumar, Advocate.

Versus

$

O.P. BATRA & ANR

...... Respondents

^

Through : Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate.

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be

allowed to see the judgment?

(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes

(3) Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest ?

Yes

J U D G M E N T

ARUNA SURESH, J.

1.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to

as „Cr.P.C.‟) the petitioner Geetika Batra has

assailed the order of the trial court dated

2009:DHC:410

Crl. M.C. No. 3710/2007

Page 2 of 30

22.08.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.63/1/2006

whereby the petitioner was summoned for offences

punishable under Sections 182/211/499/500 Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟).

2.

Factual matrix of the case is that, petitioner was

married to Rohit Batra on 18.11.2000. Due to

matrimonial

disharmony

between

the

two,

petitioner filed a complaint on 27.6.2001 before the

Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Ashok Vihar.

The said matter was reconciled somewhere in July

or September, 2001 and thereafter petitioner

started living with her husband; Rohit Batra. A son

was born out of the wedlock of the parties on

21.09.2001. In August, 2002 Rohit Batra got

employment at Bombay and the couple shifted to

Bombay where petitioner lived with him. She came

to Delhi on 25.5.2003 due to alleged cruelties

inflicted upon her by her husband. After coming

back to Delhi, she again filed a complaint with CAW

Cell on 17.7.2003. A day before the petitioner

returned to Delhi, her husband Rohit Batra had

lodged a complaint at Police Station Turbe, Bombay

2009:DHC:410

Crl. M.C. No. 3710/2007

Page 3 of 30

on 24.5.2003. On receipt of the second complaint

an FIR being FIR No.504/2003 under Sections 498-

A/406/34 IPC was registered at Police Station

Mangolpuri. Accused persons (respondents herein)

applied for anticipatory bail on 06.09.2003 and

they were finally granted anticipatory bail on

8.10.2003.

3.

After their release on bail, respondent filed the

impugned complaint on 10.11.2003 against the

petitioner in the trial court for offence punishable

under Sections 182/211/499/500 IPC. The learned

trial court vide its order dated 22.8.2007 took

cognizance of the offence and summoned the

petitioner to face trial as per law.

4.

Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner has urged that the FIR was registered on

the basis of first complaint dated 27.6.2001 as is

apparent from the reading of the FIR and not on

the second complaint filed on 17.7.2003 by the

petitioner and therefore the trial court erred in

observing that there was sufficient material to

2009:DHC:410

Crl. M.C. No. 3710/2007

Page 4 of 30

establish that petitioner had made a second

complaint before the CAW Cell leveling serious

allegations against the respondents despite her

undertaking dated 13.7.2001 and got an FIR

registered for offences under Sections 406/498-

A/34 IPC levelling almost similar allegations

against the respondents as were levelled in the first

complaint. It is further argued that the trial court

did not adopt right approach in observing that

prima facie it was clear that the petitioner (accused

in

the

complaint)

was

habitual

of

making

complaints against the respondents (complainant)

with a view to compel the respondents to succumb

to her point of view and demands without any

consideration to the seriousness or veracity of her

complaints

and

consequently

summoning

the

petitioner to face trial.

5.

It is further argued by the learned counsel for t