Delhi District Court
Mrs. Xyz vs The State And Ors on 4 March, 2024
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. (R). 313/2023
Mrs. XYZ
D/o Late Mr. Raje James
W/o Mr. Prem Sagar Dadel
R/o H. No. A-502, First Floor,
Street No. 10, South Ganesh Nagar,
Delhi-110092. .....Revisionist
VERSUS
1. The State of NCT of Delhi.
Through SHO PS Mandawali
2. Mr. Prem Sagar Dadel
S/o Sh. Prabhat Dadel
3. Smt. Eva Dadel
W/o Sh. Prabhat Dadel
Both R/o Flat no. F-1/A, Kushualmay
Apartment, K.M. Road, Nayatoli
Near Khadghara Bus Stand
District Ranchi, Jharkhand-830401.
Presently at :
Quarter no. 20A (TRD Railway Colony)
Bikramganj, Rohtas, Bihar-802212. .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 29.11.2023
Arguments heard on: 04.03.2024
Date of Judgment : 04.03.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Revisionist has filed the present revision petition against impugned order dated 23.06.2023, passed by Ms. Himanshi Crl. (R) 313/23 Mrs. XYZ vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 6 :: 2 ::
Tyagi, Ld. M.M.-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby application of the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist sought time to file documents regarding decree of divorce but despite number of opportunities, no such document has been filed by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that revisionist/ complainant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against respondent no.2 Prem Sagar Dadel (husband), respondent no.3 Eva Dadel (mother in law), Prabhat Dadel (father in law) and Prinyanka Dadel (sister in law) praying for registration of FIR against then alleging that marriage between the complainant and respondent no.2 Prem Sagar Dadel was solemnized on 26.12.2010; two children were born out of said marriage and since November, 2014, respondent no.2 has not paid any maintenance to the complainant and family members of respondent no.2 had made dowry demand and caused physical and mental cruelty to her. Respondent no.2 was having extra marital relationship with several girls and used to give her beatings. Respondent no.2 even fraudulently obtained ex-parte divorce decree on 15.03.2019 from Family Court at Gumla and despite that he established sexual relationship with the complainant on 08.10.2020, while she was residing at Mandawali and thus her consent was obtained by respondent no.2 by cheating. She gave a written complaint dated 23.03.2022 to SHO as well as DCP concerned. Since, no action was taken on the Crl. (R) 313/23 Mrs. XYZ vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 6 :: 3 ::
said complaint, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Court.
4. In the present case, status report was called from concerned Police Station, wherein it is stated that when ASI Umesh Kumar from PS Mandawali met the complainant in connection with her application/complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, she stated that she does not want to proceed with her complaint regarding demand of dowry by her husband and his family members and harassment on account thereof and that she had got her complaint filed before CAW Cell, East District already closed. She wants to live with her husband and wants maintenance from him. She further stated that she does not want any action on her complaint. A handwritten letter by the complainant addressed to SHO, PS Mandawali is annexed with the ATR report wherein she has reiterated that had got her complaint in CAW Cell closed, she only wants to proceed with maintenance case pending in Family Court and does not want to proceed with the complaint given qua demand of dowry and torture by accused persons.
5. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the complainant and considering the material available on record, Ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that it is an admitted position of the complainant that she was married with the accused and she has alleged that her husband has obtained her consent even after decree of divorce. However, the complainant has not attached any document of divorce. Moreover, the complainant has admitted that her case for maintenance is pending in Mahila Crl. (R) 313/23 Mrs. XYZ vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 6 :: 4 ::
Court. Therefore, after perusal of the material on record and after hearing the submissions of counsel for the complainant and in facts of the case, clearly there is no requirement of police investigation and for registration of FIR in the given set of facts. With these observations, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that Ld. Trial Court has erred in not considering the documents and other material available on record; from the allegations of complaint, offences under section 498-A/323/406/506/34 IPC and 376/ IPC are made out, which are cognizable and registration of FIR is must in such cases. It is thus prayed that registration of FIR may be ordered against accused persons.
7. I have considered submissions made on behalf of revisionist, impugned order and perused the record of the case.
8. An application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed with revision stating therein that revisionist is living with her mother and due to financial crisis, revisionist could not file present revision within time. Delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to financial problem of the revisionist. It is prayed that delay of 39 days may be condoned.
9. Impugned order is dated 23.06.2023 and present revision was filed on 31.10.2023. Apparently, there is delay of 39 days in filing present revision. Delay has not been explained in the application for condonation of delay except the fact that due to financial problem, revision could not be filed within time. It is settled law that a party is supposed to explain each and every Crl. (R) 313/23 Mrs. XYZ vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 6 :: 5 ::
day's delay which the revisionist has failed to do so in the present case. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.
10. On merits also, this revision is not maintainable. Revisionist had given her handwritten letter to ASI Umesh Kumar, PS Mandawali when he went to her house in connection with inquiry relating to her complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in the said letter which is annexed with the ATR, she has mentioned that she does not want to proceed with her complaint regarding demand of dowry by her husband and his family members and harassment on account thereof and that she had got her complaint filed before CAW Cell, East District already closed. She wants to live with her husband and want maintenance from him. She further stated that she did not want any action on her complaint. She further stated that she only wants to continue with her maintenance case and that she was writing this letter of her own free will.
11. As per impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court, revisionist's husband had obtained decree of divorce on 15.03.2019, but even after decree of divorce, her husband established sexual relationship. Order of divorce has not been filed by the revisionist. Once, it is admitted by the revisionist/complainant herself that her marriage has been dissolved on 15.03.2019 (though no such document placed on record) and alleged incident of establishing sexual relationship had taken place on 08.10.2020, therefore, admittedly the complainant was aware of the fact that she was not wife of the Crl. (R) 313/23 Mrs. XYZ vs. State & Ors. Page 5 of 6 :: 6 ::
accused at the date of incident and despite that she allowed respondent no. 2 to have relationship with her after giving consent for the same. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.06.2023. There is no requirement of police verification and investigation as is observed by Ld. Trial Court. Revision is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merits.
12. A copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed SHAIL by SHAIL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2024.03.04
15:39:46
+0530
Announced in the open court (Shail Jain)
th
today on 4 March, 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge
East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Crl. (R) 313/23
Mrs. XYZ vs. State & Ors. Page 6 of 6