Rita Shokeen v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

SINDHU KRISHNAKUMAR 24.08.2020 23:27 $~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 983/2020 & CRL.M.As. 8330/2020, 8331/2020 RITA SHOKEEN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh & Mr. Bahul Kalra, Advocates (M-9968703824) versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms.

Kamna Vohra, ASC (M-9810272882) Mr. Manoj Kumar Khanna for R-2&3 (M-9911074302).

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

% 24.08.2020 1.

This hearing has been held through video conferencing. 2.

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is stated to the mother of two minor daughters and one minor son. It is stated that she is separated from her husband since 2018 and she is being repeatedly threatened by her paternal aunt (Bua) namely Ms. Parvati/Respondent No. 3 and her daughter, who are extending telephonic and other kind of threats. Despite repeatedly informing the local police, no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

On 29th June, 2020, notice was issued in this petition and the status report was called for from the SHO, PS Tigri. On the next date i.e. 16th July, 2020, notice was also issued to Ms. Parvati - the Bua, who was the person against whom allegations were raised. Today, the status report has been perused. Mr. Manoj Khanna, ld. counsel enters appearance for Ms.Parvati i.e. Respondent No.3. He submits that there is a monetary dispute between his By:PRATHIBA M SINGH

client and the Petitioner. On behalf of his client, he further submits that they did not intend to extend any threats and they agree not to give any threats to the Petitioner in the future as well.

4.

Mr. Singh, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the police, despite having confirmed in the status report that the Bua had in fact threatened the Petitioner, are failing to take any action. 5.

Ms. Kamna Vohra, ld. ASC submits that the Investigating Officer (IO) in this case had visited the Petitioner and the Bua. They have both been given the numbers of the local SHO and the IO. In case any complaint is received, it shall be ensured that the same is attended to and adequate action is taken in accordance with law.

6.

Considering the overall circumstances, as per the status report, the issue appears to be one of monetary dispute between Ms. Parvati/ Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner. The telephonic calls etc that have also been made by the Bua Ms. Parvati in the context of such a monetary claim, which she has raised. However, even if there is a monetary claim, there can be no permissibility to extend threats by any party. If there is a monetary claim, Respondent No.3 is left free to avail of her remedies in accordance with law. However, she or any one on her behalf shall not extend any telephonic or physical threats to the Petitioner. If the police receive any complaint, the local SHO/IO shall ensure that the same shall be enquired into immediately. 7.

With these observations, the petition and all pending applications are disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J AUGUST 24, 2020 Rahul/ A By:PRATHIBA M SINGH