Delhi HC strikes down Husband's FIR against wife for giving dowry. Sec 3 DP act precautions needed before filing FIR against wife - hy wife cannot be / MAY not be prosecuted ... IS this a case of anti male bias in society still affecting honest law abiding citizens of this country*** judgement ***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: September 30, 2010
Judgment delivered on: October 20, 2010
+ W.P.(CRL.) NO. 501/2010 & CRL.M.A. 3921/2010(stay)
POOJA SAXENA.... PETITIONER
Through: Mr.V ijay Aggarwal with Mr.Rakesh Mukhija and Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate s.
STATE & ANOTHER.....RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State with Mr.Roshan Kumar, Advocate with I.O. S.I. Mr.Prabhanshu, P.S. Roop Nagar.
Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocate for R.2 /Sameer Saxena.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
1. Pooja Saxena, the petitioner herein, vide instant writ petition under Article s 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking direction for quashing of the order of learned ACMM dated 10. 0 3.2010 as well as FIR No.59/2010 dated 22. 0 3.2010 registered at P.S. Roop Nagar pursu ant to the af oresaid order of learned ACMM.
2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Pooja Saxena filed a complaint of dowry demand and harassment against her husband (respondent No.2) with CAW Cell and on t he basis of the said complaint, after preliminary inquiry and on the recommendation of the senior police off icer, an FIR No.232/2009 under Section s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against respondent No.2 Sameer Saxena and others at P.S. Roo p Nagar.
3. Petitioner Pooja Saxena in her above referred complaint alleged that at the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient amount of cash and valuable articles including jewellery, Swift car, Sony TV, washing machine, double bed and gift items to r espondent No.2 and his relatives. It was also alleged in the complaint that at the time of her engagement ceremony on 20.08.2006, father of respondent No.2 raised a demand for a Sony TV besides cash /gifts for the relatives as also gold ornaments, diamond jewellery and clothes etc. for the sister -in -law of the respondent as also her two daughters. Father of the petitioner fulfilled the said demand s but the father -in -law of the petitioner was not satisfied and he raise d a demand for a car of a prestigious brand or in the alternative asked for a deposit of ` 5 lakhs as a corpus to enable them to purchase a car. He suggested that the car should be purchased in the name of the petitioner, failing which he would not go on with the marriage which may cause harassment to the parents of the petitioner and create difficulty in finding a match for the marriage of the younger sister of the petitioner
rest of the judgement enclosed as file in link below (please click on link below or cut and paste link on your browser )
SAME file is also enclosed as an attachment in case the attachment is easier to read / available on some blogs