Delhi District Court
Yogesh Sharma vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 1 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 33/2023
Police Station: Anand Vihar
Yogesh Sharma
s/o Late Om Prakash Sharma
r/o H. No. B-2, Gali No. 1,
West Arjun Nagar, Delhi - 110031.
....... Revisionist
Vs.
The State (GNCT of Delhi)
...... Respondent
Date of institution : 04.02.2023
Date of reserving order : Not Reserved
Date of order : 01.03.2023
ORDER
1. Vide this order, the Court shall decide one revision petition filed by revisionist/accused, challenging the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court-02), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby charged for the offence u/s 498-A IPC was framed against revisionist/accused.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present revisionist petition is as follows:
Revisionist/accused got married to complainant Deepika Sharma on 07.03.2011. It is alleged that after some time of the marriage, revisionist/accused alongwith his parents started pressuring her for dowry, used abusive language against her, harassed her in different manners, used to keep her locked in the house and also tortured her financially. It is alleged that when complainant confronted her husband with the aforesaid abuse, he threatened her to dissolve the matrimonial relationship. There are Yogesh Sharma vs. State Page 1 of 5 allegations of scuffle and extending threats to complainant. Complainant has alleged that her husband stopped paying for her daily expenses. It is the allegation revisionist/accused asked the complainant to abort the child. It is also alleged that revisionist/accused willfully deserted her and started living at the house of his brother. Complainant lodged a complaint before CAW Cell against revisionist/accused as well as his parents. The parties could not settle the matter and consequently, present FIR was registered.
Learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties on point of Charge, passed an order dated 07.07.2022 directing framing of Charge u/s 498-A IPC against the revisionist/accused. Further, a separate Charge u/s 498-A IPC was framed against revisionist/accused on 11.11.2022 in terms of order dated 07.07.2022.
3. Revisionist/accused has challenged framing of Charge vide order dated 11.11.2022 on different grounds. It is argued by learned counsel for revisionist/accused that complainant has made general allegations of cruelty without specifying any particular demand. It is argued that revisionist/accused never meeted out any cruelty to complainant and as per the allegations in FIR, the alleged cruelty was never for any particular demand. It is also submitted that the basic ingredients of offence u/s 498-A IPC are not made out on the basis of written complaint of complainant and learned Trial Court ordered framing of Charge against revisionist/accused without due consideration of the material on record. It is request that the present revision be allowed and revisionist/accused be discharged.
4. Per contra, learned Addl. PP for State argued that order dated 07.07.2022 has been passed after due consideration of Yogesh Sharma vs. State Page 2 of 5 all the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued that complainant has specified the nature of cruelty effected against during her stay with revisionist/accused and it is not necessary that such a cruelty is only to make the complainant accede to any unlawful demand. It is submitted that order dated 07.07.2022 and consequent framing of charge on 11.11.2022 cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
5. Submissions heard. Record perused.
6. At the outset, it is observed that revisionist/accused has challenged order dated 11.11.2022 whereby formal charge u/s 498-A IPC has been framed against him. It is noted that learned MM (Mahila Court) actually ordered framing of charge u/s 498-A IPC against revisionist/accused vide detailed order dated 07.07.2022. Since revisionist/accused is seeking discharge on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, he has practically challenged order dated 07.07.2022 and not order dated 11.11.2022.
In this regard, it is observed that all grounds of revision have been raised against order dated 07.07.2022 and not against order dated 11.11.2022. In fact, there is no order dated 11.11.2022 as only formal charge was framed against revisionist/accused on the said date in terms of previous order dated 07.07.2022. Revisionist/accused was statutarily required to challenge order dated 07.07.2022 and not order dated 11.11.2022.
It is observed that period of limitation for filing revision petition for challenging order dated 07.07.2022 expired on 07.10.2022 and in the said eventuality, present revision petition has been filed with a delay of almost four months. No application u/s 5 of Limitation Act has been filed alongwith present revision petition. In the opinion of this Court, on the aforesaid technical grounds itself, revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
Yogesh Sharma vs. State Page 3 of 5
7. Be that as it may, considering the present revision petition against formal framing of charge u/s 498-A IPC on 11.11.2022, the Court shall consider the submissions of learned counsel for revisionist/accused. It is observed that firstly, learned MM (Mahila Court) has dealt with all the submissions of learned counsel for revisionist/accused which have been raised before this Court in revision. Learned Trial Court has also considered all the allegations in the written complaint of complainant while passing order on charge against revisionist/accused.
8. This Court has also gone through the written complaint and chargesheet of the present case. It is observed that there are categorical allegations of 'cruelty' against revisionist/accused in different manners at different occasions. In the opinion of this Court, complainant was constantly extended threats, abused and asked to abort her child. It is observed that all such acts are sufficient to constitute 'cruelty' in the eyes of law. It is a settled law that cruelty need not be physical and may have emotional/mental connotations.
Further, u/s 498-A (I) IPC, it is not necessary that cruelty be extended to any woman for any particular illegal or unlawful demand. In fact, any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman, shall also constitute cruelty.
In the opinion of opinion of this Court, allegations in the written complaint of complainant are sufficient to cause grave 'injury' (as defined u/s 44 IPC) or danger to life or health (whether mental or physical) of complainant. As such, there is no reason to opine that facts, circumstances and allegations do not constitute offence u/s 498-A IPC. The argument of learned counsel for Yogesh Sharma vs. State Page 4 of 5 revisionist/accused that there was no unlawful demand at any point of time and therefore, offence u/s 498-A IPC is not made out, is misconceived in the light of unambiguous language of the said provision. Learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment in case titled 'Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr, (1973) SCR (299).
8. In view of the discussion in preceding paragraphs, this Court does not find any incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the order of learned Trial Court dated 07.07.2022 or 11.11.2022. Further, this Court cannot substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of learned Trial Court as there is no patent error or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, order dated 07.07.2022 and 11.11.2022 is upheld and the present revision petition is dismissed.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Trial Court Record be sent back to learned Trial Court alongwith a copy of this order. Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.
Dictated & announced in open Court on 01.03.2023 (ARVIND BANSAL) Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Yogesh Sharma vs. State Page 5 of 5