SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rishi Ahuja vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 25 February, 2019

243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M -32813 of 2017
Date of decision : February 25, 2019

Rishi Ahuja
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.106 dated

28.3.2016 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Sushant Lok, District

Gurugram (Annexure P-1); final report/challan dated 1.3.2017 (Annexure

P-2) filed under Section 406 IPC and the subsequent proceedings arising out

of the same FIR pending in the trial Court.

As per the allegations in the FIR registered by respondent No.2-

Ekta Ahuja, wife of Rishi Ahuja, it is stated that she has one Honda Brio car

No.HR-26-CE-8850 and about 1-1½ years ago her husband, i.e. petitioner

had taken the same without her consent and is not returning it back despite

demand and can use the same in criminal activity. It is further stated that her

husband is a clever person and he can go to any extent and she want her car

to be returned back. Legal action be taken.

Thereafter, the present FIR was registered. During the pendency

1 of 5
11-03-2019 06:01:24 :::
CRM-M -32813 of 2017 -2-

of the anticipatory bail, the petitioner offered some money in lieu of the car

and on 5.9.2016, the Additional Sessions Judge, recorded the following

statement of the respondent-complainant :-

“Statement of Ekta d/o G.S. Sobti r/o J-503,
Wembley Estate, Sector-50, Gurgaon on S.A.
Stated that I received the demand draft bearing
No.003318 dated 26.8.2016 amounting to
Rs.1,79,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Cyber City-II
Branch, Gurgaon from Rishi Ahuja. I will not be
responsible for any mishap or misuse of car in
question that might have been committed by Rishi
Ahuja or any other person. Since Rishi Ahuja has
paid entire sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to me so I shall
have no right over vehicle in question. However,
Rishi Ahuja shall be liable for all liabilities relating
to car in question. I also assist Rishi Ahuja for
completion of formalities required for transferring
vehicle in question like signing the NOCs in the
name of the person whose in the possession of the
car in question.

ROAC Sd/-
Sd/- R.K. Mehta
ASJ/Gurgaon/5.9.2016″

It appears that, thereafter, the anticipatory bail application was

allowed as the matter was amicably settled between the parties and entire

sum of Rs.5.00 lacs was paid to the complainant.

While issuing notice of motion, it was noticed that since the FIR

is registered as an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the parties,

there is a possibility of some amicable settlement and the case was referred

to the Mediation and Concilliation Centre of this Court. However, no

2 of 5
11-03-2019 06:01:24 :::
CRM-M -32813 of 2017 -3-

settlement could be arrived at between the parties as per the report of the

Mediator.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from bare perusal

of the FIR, no offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is made out as

there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner and the allegation in the

FIR are that 1-1½ years ago, the petitioner has taken the car of the

complainant and was not returning it back and the petitioner has already paid

the entire sum of Rs.5.00 lacs, i.e. the agreed value of the car to respondent

No.2-complainant who had acknowledged the same and suffered a statement

before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 5.9.2016.

However, later on, on account of the other matrimonial dispute between the

parties she has back out and is not adhering to the settlement between the

parties.

Reply by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police,

DLF, Gurugram is on record and as per the reply, after a complete

investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the

trial Court and the case was then fixed for framing of the charges.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating

Officer, has submitted that now the charges have been framed and the case is

fixed for prosecution evidence. It is further stated in the affidavit that prima

facie offence under Section 406 IPC is made out from the FIR.

As per the reply by way of affidavit of counsel for respondent

No.2 is also filed in which it is stated that he petitioner has withdrawn from

the matrimonial alliance of the complainant and is residing in Bangalore and

3 of 5
11-03-2019 06:01:24 :::
CRM-M -32813 of 2017 -4-

the settlement was only for the purpose of anticipatory bail. It is further

stated in the reply that the petitioner got married to respondent No.2 with an

intention to take the alimony money from her which she has received from

her ex-husband Gaurav Dewan and after receiving the amount, he has

withdrawn from the matrimonial alliance.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in 27

complainants in the Saket Court. However, the counsel for respondent No.2

could not dispute that the amount of Rs.5.00 lacs has been received by

respondent No.2 by way of draft as the market value of the car.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim Vs. Smt. Nahid Begum, 2005(1)

RCR (Criminal) 697 and Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2004(4)

RCR (Criminal) 949(SC), wherein it has been held that where the wife after

entering into settlement and accepting money from the husband has backed

out, considering the conduct of the wife continuation of the proceeding will

be misuse of process of law and the FIR was quashed.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that though it

appears that more than one litigation arising out of a matrimonial dispute

between petitioner and respondent No.2 are pending. However, in the

present FIR, which was registered on the basis of compromise that the

petitioner-husband is not returning the car for the last 1-1½ years, the

petitioner has paid the market value of the car, i.e. Rs.5.00 lacs and

respondent No.2-wife has duly accepted the same. Therefore, finding that

respondent No.2, despite having been received the entire amount is still

4 of 5
11-03-2019 06:01:24 :::
CRM-M -32813 of 2017 -5-

contesting the FIR, I find that it is a fit case where the FIR deserves to be

quashed in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in

Mohd. Shamim’s and Ruchi Agarwal’s case(s) (supra)

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.106 dated

28.3.2016 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Sushant Lok, District

Gurugram is quashed.

( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
February 25, 2019 JUDGE
satish

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No

5 of 5
11-03-2019 06:01:24 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation