Top

Sheila kin moves court against wife

An FIR under penal provisions relating to cheating, dishonest misappropriation of property and theft has been lodged against Imran.

New Delhi: Seeking contempt action against his estranged wife, Syed Mohammed Imran, son-in-law of former Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit, moved the Delhi high court alleging that he was arrested “casually” in a criminal case in contravention of the apex court guidelines.

Ms Dikshit’s daughter Latika has alleged that her estranged husband Imran took away papers of a land, owned by her at Nainital, despite having been told not to do so.

An FIR under penal provisions relating to cheating, dishonest misappropriation of property and theft has been lodged against Imran.

Referring an apex court verdict, Imran said that the police needed to follow the “checklist/guidelines which have been laid down by it against casual arrests in cases under Section 498A (harassment to woman by her husband and her in-laws) of the IPC as also under cases where punishment is for seven years or less.” The plea, which came up for hearing before Justice Manmohan, alleged that Imran was “vexatiously and illegally” arrested and detained by the Delhi police without following proper procedure and this “malafide act” of the cops was at the behest of his wife, who belongs to an “influential political family.”

Advocates P. Banerjee and Neeraj Kumar, appearing for Imran, argued in the court that a false and fabricated FIR was lodged against their client without application of mind and checking the genuineness of his wife’s complaint.

The counsel said the contents of the FIR “ex-facie” showed that the allegations in the complaint pertained to matrimonial dispute but the FIR was lodged under other penal provisions.

The FIR does not disclose commission of any offence under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property) and 380 (theft) read with section 66 of the IT Act, which have been invoked by the police, he said. “The allegations in the FIR are in the nature of matrimonial dispute. The respondents ought not to have registered in a routine manner,” the plea said.

Next Story