W.P.(CRL)/2090/2013 of SANGEETA SHARMA Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 2090/2013

SANGEETA SHARMA..... PetitionerThroughMr.L.K. Dixit & Mr.S.K. Jaswal,Advs.ThroughMr.L.K. Dixit & Mr.S.K. Jaswal,Advs.

versus

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS..... RespondentsThroughMr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel(Crl.) with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Adv.SI Mehnab Alam PS Khajuri Khas.Mr.Shakti Chand Sharma, Adv. forR3 to R7.ThroughMr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel(Crl.) with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Adv.SI Mehnab Alam PS Khajuri Khas.Mr.Shakti Chand Sharma, Adv. forR3 to R7.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%06.10.2015

Thepetitionerhassoughtdirectiontotherespondentsforinvestigating the case lodged by the petitioner in proper manner.

grievance has been raised by the petitioner that under duress, shewas made to drop the name of some of the accused persons and therespondents made her sign on the petition of complaint which was dictatedby them only in the police station.

It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents and the State thatwith respect to quarrel which took place on 01.12.2013, two separate FIRswere registered.

On the statement of one Mr.Avishek Rawat, FIR No.691/2013 (PSKhajuri Khas) was instituted for offences under Sections 452/323/506/34 of

the IPC.

On the statement of the petitioner, separate case vide FIRNo.692/2013 in the same police station was registered against AvishekRawat and others for offence under sections 452/323/34 of the IPC.

From the records, it appears that the dispute arose because of theparties being supporters of two different political parties which had fieldedtheir own candidates at the hustings.

It has been submitted on behalf of the State that only day after thelodging of the aforesaid cases, the parties decided to settle their differences.

On the strength of such settlement, the parties were granting bail bythe Court below.

The petitioner submits that the allegation of molestation against theaccused persons was not incorporated in the FIR.

These are disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be gone intoin writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

This Court has noticed the fact that no such complaint was lodgedbefore the Magistrate about the truant behaviour of some of the respondentsin the present writ petition.

If the petitioner was aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part ofthe investigating agency, she could have complained about the same eitherbefore the superior authorities or could have brought it to the notice of theconcerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

In any view of the matter, as has been stated earlier, this Court is notinclined to interfere in disputed questions of fact.

There is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed inlimine.

OCTOBER 06, 2015ab

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J