* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 24th September, 2018
Judgment delivered on: 16th November, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1868/2011
PRAVEEN VERMA ….. Petitioner
STATE ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Tyagi, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with
SI Shashi Kumar
Mr. Ajay Verma, Ms. Sudha Reddy and Ms. Katyayini,
Advs. for R-3
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 578/2005 under section
498A/406/506/34 Indian penal code, police station Shalimar Bagh and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that petitioner is a citizen of United
States of America and is a permanent resident there. Petitioner married
Respondent No. 3 on 04.05.1992. By a decree of divorce dated 10.08.2007
marriage between the parties has been dissolved.
3. It is contended that Respondent No.3 had been abusing the process
of law in United States of America as well as in India by initiating multiple
CRL.M.C. 1868/2011 Page 1 of 5
judicial proceedings civil as well as criminal on concocted allegations in
order to harass the petitioner and his family members. It is contended that
the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the subject FIR as
the same has been malafidely instituted by Respondent No. 3 and is an
abuse of process of law.
4. It is contended that subject FIR and the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom have been quashed by the High Court qua the other
accused i.e. the family members of the petitioner. It is further contended
that courts in India do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the acts
alleged to have been done by a foreign citizen on foreign land.
5. It is contended that the allegations in the FIR are concocted and
false. It is contended that FIR has been registered in the year 2005 and the
parties were married in 1992 and as such there is unexplained delay.
Further the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence.
6. It is further alleged that criminal proceedings which are manifestly
attended with malafide intentions and ulterior motive for wrecking
vengeance on the accused and to spite him for private and personal grudge
cannot be allowed to continue in a court of law. Reliance is placed on the
decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana others versus Bhajan
Lal others, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.
7. Per contra a preliminary objection is been raised by learned APP
appearing for the State. It is contended that petitioner has been declared a
proclaimed offender by the trial court by order dated 01.04.2006. Since
petitioner has not approached the trial court for seeking recall of the
CRL.M.C. 1868/2011 Page 2 of 5
proceedings initiated under section 82 Cr.P.C., subject petition is not
maintainable at the behest of the petitioner through a general power of
8. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the initiation
of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not warranted and the
petitioner had valid reasons for not appearing before the trial court because
Respondent No.3 had simultaneously initiated proceedings in United States
of America as also in India. It is contended that the proceedings initiated in
USA were for custody of the minor children and simultaneously
proceedings in India were initiated to prevent the petitioner from attending
to the proceedings in USA. In order to effectively defend himself in the
proceedings initiated in USA by Respondent No.3, petitioner left India and
successfully defended the proceedings there.
9. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that proceedings
under section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner and by order
dated 01.04.2006, the trial court has declared the petitioner as a proclaimed
offender and further initiated process under section 83 Cr.P.C.. It is an
admitted position that petitioner has not initiated any proceedings to seek
recall of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender and the
initiation of process under section 83 Cr.P.C.. Further, the petitioner even
after the conclusion of the proceedings in USA has chosen not to come to
India to appear before the Trial Court.
10. Failure to appear before the court consequent to a proclamation
issued under section 82 Cr.P.C. has itself been made on offence under the
Indian penal code. Petitioner in the present case has been declared a
CRL.M.C. 1868/2011 Page 3 of 5
proclaimed offender as far back as in 2006 and thereafter the petitioner has
chosen not to appear before the court and participate in the legal
proceedings or to seek recall of the proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C..
11. Consistently, this court has been taking the view that an accused
who has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and participate
in the legal process, cannot approach this court for seeking the discretionary
relief under section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. This court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
has to be conscious of the fact that ordinarily it is not to embark upon an
enquiry with regard to reliability of evidence or to appraise the same as that
is the function of the trial court. Though the judicial process cannot be used
as an instrument of oppression or needless harassment, however the Court
is to be judicious in exercising discretion and it has to take all relevant facts
and circumstances into consideration prior to exercise of powers of
quashing of criminal process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. This power is to be
exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases.
13. When the petitioner is not willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the
court and participate in the legal process, it would be inappropriate for this
court to exercise powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., at the request of such
an accused, to even examine as to whether the case of the petitioner
satisfies the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in State of
Haryana others versus Bhajan Lal others (Supra) for quashing of an
CRL.M.C. 1868/2011 Page 4 of 5
14. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the petition filed
by the petitioner seeking quashing of the subject FIR and the consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom. The petition is accordingly dismissed as
not maintainable. Liberty is however granted to the petitioner to approach
the trial court to seek recall of the proceedings initiated under section 82
and 83 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, if circumstances warrant, approach this court
afresh under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing.
15. It is however clarified that this court has neither examined nor
commented on the merits of the case of either party and also as to the
validity or otherwise of the proceedings initiated under section 82 and 83
16. Order dasti under the signatures of court master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 16, 2018
CRL.M.C. 1868/2011 Page 5 of 5