Daily Archives: May 20, 2016

I filed case sayin they asked 25 lakhs!! Now I’ve taken 45 lakhs so I’ll agree 2 quash! Del HC 498a, 406 quash

a woman files 498a, 406 etc claiming husband and co demanded 25 lakhs. later she takes 45 lakhs as “settlement”. Then she agrees to quash as well !! this is the sick nature of these 498a etc cases !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 441/2016 & Crl.M.A. No. 1845/2016
Date of Decision : May 10th, 2016

UMANG GOYAL                                     ….. Petitioner
Through:    Mr. Sanjeev Shai, Advocate

versus

STATE AND ANR                                        ….. Respondent
Through:             Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar, CAW Cell/E.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

  1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Umang Goel through his SPA Sh. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal for quashing of FIR No.360/2013 dated 16.08.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between petitioner no.1 through his SPA Sh. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal and respondent no.2, Smt. Sonia Rawat on 13.10.2015.
  2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question by her counsel.
  3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 23.04.2009. The family of the husband of the complainant was not satisfied with the dowry and demanded Rs. 25 Lacs. The husband of the complainant along with his other family members used to daily beat and abuse the complainant. The complainant was forced to leave her job in Nov, 2009 and was put to menial house chores. They strategically extorted an amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakhs and jewellery worth Rs. 15 Lacs from the parents of the complainant while subjecting the complainant to physical and mental torture and thereby putting her into mental depression for which complainant has been seeking medical treatment since 02.03.2012. The respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 13.10.2015, during the pendency of the proceedings emanating from the FIR in question, the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2.
  4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU, it has been agreed that the parties shall take divorce by way of mutual consent in which the petitioner shall be represented his SPA Sh. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal. It is also agreed that the schedule for seeking divorce through mutual consent shall be as enunciated in the terms of the MOU. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs as full and final settlement of all her claims, if any, in the manner enunciated in the terms of the MOU. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs at the time of quashing the FIR in question before this Court to respondent no.2 after giving her no objection for quashing of FIR in question against the petitioners. It is also agreed that within two weeks from recording of the statement of the parties in the First motion, the respondent no.2 and the petitioners shall file the appropriate petition for the quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioners in quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that after the receipt of the said settlement amount, respondent no.2 shall have no claim, if any of any nature whatsoever including jewellery articles/stridhan valuables etc. or maintenance (past, present and future), against the petitioner no.1 or his family members. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 or his family members shall have no claim whatsoever against respondent no.2 or her family members, friends, relatives etc. It is also agreed that the parties shall not communicate with each other or interfere in each other’s lives and that they both shall be free to live their private lives happily and peacefully. It is also agreed that the parties have no claims for alimony pendent lite or permanent or in any property/assets of either party whether joint, ancestral, HUF, self-acquired etc. and that no further claims can be made by any party against each other or properties of each other. It is also agreed that the parties shall not initiate any proceedings against each other or their family members in regard to the disputes arising out of the marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 in the future and that they shall withdraw all pending cases, if any, filed against each other unconditionally and forever. It is also agreed that all the orders passed shall not be given effect to or enforced in any Court of law. It is also agreed that all cases between the parties shall be dismissed as withdrawn/compromised by filing appropriate applications based on this MOU and that the steps in that regard shall be taken by the concerned party within 2 weeks of recording of statements of parties in the first motion. It is also agreed that parties shall cooperate with each other for and sign all relevant documents required. It is also agreed that all disputes between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 and their families stand settled and that they shall raise no new claims against each other in the future after execution of this MOU. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 07.11.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
  5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
  6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
    • “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
    • 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
    • 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
      • (i) ends of justice, or
      • (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
    • 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
    • 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
  7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
  8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
  9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
  10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non- compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
  11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts are already overburdened due to pendency of large number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.
  12. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
  13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent no.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
  14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.360/2013 dated 16.08.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
  15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
  16. Application Crl.M.A. No. 1845/2016 is also disposed of.

 

(P.S.TEJI)

JUDGE

May 10, 2016

dd

Marriage is a great institution. Some times….just sometimes it ends with a 2.5 crore payment !!!

After multiple cases on the husband, we see that a “settlement” is arrived at & husband “agrees” to pay 2.5 Crores to the wife !!

2.5 crores !! Oh My Gawd !!

Did I mention that parties agree to a “mutual consent” divorce, wife agrees to quash 498a 406 etc, withdraw her Sec 125 CrPC petition and also withdraw the DV case (meaning all these swords were hanging on that guy’s head for all along !!)

again …2.5 crores !! Oh My Gawd !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 1428/2016

Date of Decision : May 18th, 2016

SANJAY SINGHAL ….Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR… Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP
Mr. Ajay Kumar Arora, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

  1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Sanjay Singhal for quashing of FIR No.186/2009 dated 23.12.2009, under Sections 406/420/468/471/34 IPC registered at Police Station Karol Bagh on the basis of the settlement agreement arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Renu Singhal on 16.05.2015. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question by her counsel.
  3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that somebody forged the letter of resignation dated 24.10.2007 of the complainant and thus, the complainant lodged the FIR in question against M/s SFS Infinite Ltd. and all its Directors, namely, Mr. Shiam Sunder Singhal, Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Mr. Atul Mittal, Mr. Munish Kakara and Mr. Rajender Kumar Goel. The complainant alleged that one motive of her fraudulent removal could be the elevation of Mr. Sanjay Singhal to the post of M.D. The complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house on 29.11.2007 by her husband-petitioner, thus FIR No. 410/2008 dated 01.12.2008 was lodged against him at Mukherjee Nagar. It is further alleged that 2,00,900 shares were transferred by the company on the basis of complainant’s forged signature. Later on, parties arrived at an amicable settlement with each other.
  4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement agreement, the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall dissolve their marriage be decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 2.5 crore to the respondent no.2 towards all her legal entitlements (past, present and future) including permanent alimony. The payment of the said amount shall be as enunciated in the settlement agreement. It is also agreed that the first motion will take place within 2 weeks from the date of the signing of the said agreement. It is further agreed that the concerned party shall get the FIR in question quashed. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall surrender all her rights in all the moveable and immoveable properties where she has a share with the petitioner or his family members and the respondent no.2 shall sign all the relevant documents relating to the same in favour of the petitioner or any other person authorized by the petitioner within 16th to 31st July, 2015. It is further agreed that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw her petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. at the time of recording the statement of first motion and shall also withdraw her DV Act case on 03.06.2015. It is further agreed that after the passing of the decree of divorce, both the parties shall file for quashing of the FIR No. 218/2010 under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and FIR No. 410/2008 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi before this Court within two weeks. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 12.01.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
  5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
    • “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
  6. 6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
    • “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
      • (i) ends of justice, or
      • (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
    • 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
    • 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
  7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
  8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
  9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
  10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offences under Sections 468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
  11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
  12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.186/2009 dated 23.12.2009, under Sections 406/420/468/471/34 IPC registered at Police Station Karol Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

 

(P.S.TEJI)

JUDGE

MAY 18, 2016

dd

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Husband sets himself ablaze at ACP office following wife’s 498a complaint In-laws were screaming at him right inside the police station !! 

A wife files  a 498a complaint on husband. Husband is summoned  to the police station for enquiry. The harassed husband repeatedly says that he will have to commit suicide because of his wife’s complaint. Hi repeated statements about setting himself ablaze go unheeded !! His in-laws present at the police station say go and do what you want ! The man sets himself  at the police station . After this incident, while being interviewed All that the police have to say is that this is the security lapse and they will start an enquiry into it

There is absolutely no talk about, is the complaint a false complaint ? Why were the in-laws shouting at this man inside the police station? Or the in-laws I allowed to take law into their hands? Is the police enquiry supposed to be a kangaroo court in which the in-laws can scream on the man? 



*** News from Aak tak site ***

Gurgaon man sets himself ablaze in ACP’s office over FIR by wife in Gurgaon

The man, identified as Navdeep Kumar Mehta, has suffered 70 per cent burn injuries. He was first rushed to the city civil hospital here, but was later shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital. A high-level inquiry has been set up to investigate into the incident.

Ajay Kumar

Gurgaon, May 20, 2015 | 

A 33-Year-old man on Tuesday allegedly set himself on fire in the office of Gurgaon ACP where he was called in by the women’s cell following a complaint against him by his wife Kavita. The man, identified as Navdeep Kumar Mehta, has suffered 70 per cent burn injuries. He was first rushed to the city civil hospital here, but was later shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital. A high-level inquiry has been set up to investigate into the incident.

The incident took place on Tuesday afternoon at the ACP’s office on Khandsa Road. According to sources, Mehta’s repeated threats that he would set himself on fire went unheeded for several minutes. Ultimately, he executed the threat, despite presence of several police personnel.

Sources said Mehta’s wife had lodged a complaint against him under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It was on the basis of this complaint that the police women’s cell had called Mehta for questioning. However, no sooner Mehta arrived at the police precinct, an altercation broke out between him and his in-laws who were present there.

According to eyewitnesses, during the heated exchange Mehta threatened that he would set himself on fire. His in-laws allegedly retorted by saying that he was free to do whatever he wanted. Clearly incited by the harsh words, Mehta ran to his vehicle and doused himself with petrol. He returned to the gate of the precinct carrying a matchbox and a bottle of petrol. A scuffle broke out when someone tried to snatch the matchbox from him, which fell on the road. But Mehta managed to pick up the matchbox before setting himself on fire. He then ran inside the women’s cell office and reportedly grabbed his mother-in-law, who got injured. Mehta then collapsed on the floor of the office, sources said.

Mehta, who supplied medicines in Gurgaon, married Kavita in 2008. However, their relationship got soured in the last few years, allegedly due to constant interference of Mehta’s mother-in-law.

SHO of city police station Vishal Kumar told Mail Today that Mehta was called in to the women’s cell to ascertain his views in connection with the complaint lodged against him.

When asked how Mehta managed to attempt suicide despite police presence, Kumar said, “It was indeed a huge security lapse. The inquiry committee will investigate into the roles of the police personnel who were present at the office. Action will be taken if needed.” 

For more news from India Today, follow us on Twitter @indiatoday and on Facebook at facebook.com/IndiaToday

For news and videos in Hindi, go to AajTak.in. ताज़ातरीन ख़बरों और वीडियो के लिए आजतक.इन पर आएं.