Sh Ashok Kumar & ORS v. The State & ORS
24# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SH ASHOK KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by:
Mr. M.S. Bammi and Mr.
Manish Singh, Advocates.
versus THE STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by:
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Additional Standing Counsel for State with Ms. Amita Sachdeva, Advocate.
Mr. Arvind Sharma and Mr.
Mukul Tomar, Advocates for respondent No.8.
Mr. Sumit Gaba, Advocate for respondent Nos. 9 to 13.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 29.08.2018 1.
By the present petition the petitioners, who are the father, mother and sister of respondent No.8 Sumit Arora seek protection from respondent No.8, his wife respondent No.9 and her family members respondent Nos.10 to 13.
2.
A brief background of the case is that the marriage between respondent No. 8, son of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3 was performed with respondent No.9 on 16th November, 2016 whereafter respondent No.9 started living in the matrimonial home with the petitioners.
3.
It appears that disputes arose between the parties and a PCR call was made by the petitioners on 14th March, 2017 which was recorded vide DD No.40A. The said call was entrusted to SI Satbir Singh who on inquiry found it to be a family dispute and entered the return diary vide DD No. 22B. Later a written complaint was made on 5th May, 2017 at PS Tilak Nagar alleging that respondent No.8 was attempting to enter the house which the petitioners were resisting. Subsequently it is the case of the petitioners that on 10th May, 2017 a PCR call was made informing that respondent Nos. 9 to 13 are trying to enter the house and threatening the petitioners.
4.
A status report has been filed. As per the status report, it is the case of the petitioners that in March, 2017 relations between the parties strained whereafter respondent No.9 started residing at her parents' house since 14th March, 2017 and lodged a complaint in CAW Cell, Kirit Nagar against her husband and the petitioners herein. Subsequently, on the said complaint of respondent No.9 FIR under Section 406/498A/34 IPC was registered which is pending investigation.
5.
From the facts noted above it is evident that the two PCR calls and the written complaint were made by the petitioners, firstly when the respondent No.9 was living in the matrimonial home and secondly when she wanted to re-enter the house. No complaint whatsoever of any kind has been received after May, 2017 as the parties are taking recourse to their legal remedies as available to them. Thus this Court finds no reason to issue any directions for granting protection to the petitioners.
6.
Petition is dismissed, however, liberty is granted to the petitioners that in case in future there is any threat to their lives and property they may approach the concerned police station.
7.
Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 29, 2018 'vn'