0

The Revisional Court had limited powers while exercising its jurisdiction: High Court Of Delhi

This Court does not find any cogent reason to allow the operation of the impugned Order dated 17th March, 2018 passed by learned Special Judge in Revision Petition No. 30/2018. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of was upheld by the High Court Of Delhi through the learned bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH in the case of ANJANI GUPTA Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR (CRL.M.C. 2120/2018) on 8th March, 2022.

Brief facts of the case are that petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Marriage between the Petitioner and the son of the Respondent No. 2, Alok Gupta, was solemnized on 30th January, 1990 according to Hindu rites and rituals and Respondent No. 2 is the father-in-law of the Petitioner.

The relationship between the Petitioner and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that her husband used to continuously torture, harass and humiliate her for dowry and other issues since the very beginning of marriage and was maltreated by him and his family members. The Petitioner alleges that her husband was having an illicit relationship with his office receptionist, which was supported by his family members. It was alleged that she was thrown out from her matrimonial house on 16th September, 2011.

In the instant Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the Order dated 17th March, 2018 by way of which the learned Sessions Judge observed that a prima facie ground had been made out to allege that the Petitioner committed theft of the letters in possession of the Respondent No. 2 as well as the Order dated 20th June, 2015, wherein summons were issued to the Petitioner under Section 380 of the IPC.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 2 had been in a habit of filing false and frivolous complaints and cases against the Petitioner with the intention to torment and harass her. It is submitted that by merely picking up certain letters lying at the premises, the offence of theft under Section 380 of the IPC could not have been made out. Given that the Petitioner too had been living there for more than 20 years, there is a high probability that any letter being received at the premises could have belonged to her.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the Order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 1st November, 2013, granting the Right of Residence was limited to the first floor of the premises in question and its further use and occupancy, the right, however, did not subsist in breaking the locks of the house and enter forcefully.

The Court observed that “The instant dispute has arisen out of matrimonial discord between two people which has also, led to filing of more than 50 criminal and civil cases between not only the husband and the wife but also their family members. The FIR by the Respondent No. 2 accusing Petitioner of charges of theft seems to be one more such attempt to harass her.”

The Court held that this Court does not find any cogent reason to allow the operation of the impugned Order dated 17th March, 2018 passed by learned Special Judge (PC ACT) CBI, East District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 30/2018. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

Click here to read the Judgement

Written by- Riya Singh, Legal Intern, Prime Legal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat