$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Decided on:
16. h July, 2018 CRL.M.C. 667/2016 and Crl. M.A. 3577/2016 AMANPREET SANDHU ........ Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arpita Rai and Ms. Rytim Vohra, Advocates versus SHAURYA SHANDILYA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. N. Prabhakar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner and the respondent were concededly married to each other, their marriage having run into rough weather. This led to litigation including petition under Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being initiated. The respondent had approached the Metropolitan Magistrate with a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in May 2015, inter alia, alleging offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 having been committed by the petitioner. He pointed out that, in her petition under Section 125 Cr. PC, the petitioner had alleged that the respondent is a patient of depression, suffering from clinically diagnosed Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and was on medication running in poor health and would have Crl. M.C.667/2016 Page 1 of 3 massive showdown with certain persons. He alleged that the respondent had published a copy of the petition to unauthorized persons with the intent to bring him in disrepute in their estimation.
2. The Magistrate held inquiry in the course of which the respondent led evidence by examining not only herself but also at least two other persons to whom the copy of the petition had been allegedly circulated. It is on the basis of such material that the Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner by order dated 19.11.2015.
3. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr. PC to seek quashing of the proceedings in the said criminal case submitting that the allegations in the complaint are false and misconceived.
4. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC ought not be exercised unless there is unimpeachable evidence showing facts to the contrary, in a situation where question of facts arise. Though in a slightly different context explaining the parameters of the jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC, the Supreme Court in the case of Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd., (2008) 13 SCC678observed thus :-
"“22. Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears to be plausible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet again, the High Court at that stage would not ordinarily enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character Crl. M.C.667/2016 Page 2 of 3 should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. While we are not oblivious of the fact that although a large number of disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil courts, but criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal, namely, to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately. The courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice; but, on its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine. The courts cannot also lose sight of the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings would be maintainable.” the other, cannot also travel beyond (emphasis supplied) 5. Reserving the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition at hand, which may be agitated in the trial before the court where the matter is pending, in answer to the charge, this court declines to interfere under Section 482 Cr. PC. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
6. R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY16 2018 yg Crl. M.C.667/2016 Page 3 of 3