Delhi District Court
Bharti Rajwansh vs Delhi on 31 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLNT01-001550-2019
Crl. Revision No.49/2019
Bharti Rajwansh,
D/o Late Sh. Nand Lal Meena,
R/o 52, Jhang Apartment,
Sector-13, Rohini,
Delhi. ........Revisionist
Versus
1. State NCT of Delhi
2. Atul Rajwansh,
S/o Sh. Chander Mohan,
R/o 38, Bhairu Vilas,
Opposite K.V. No.1, Airforce,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
(respondent no.2 was deleted from
array of parties vide order dated 27.04.2019)
3. Chander Mohan, S/o Late Sh. Ram Murti, R/o 38, Bhairu Vilas, Opposite K.V. No.1, Airforce, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
4. Smt. Rama, W/o Sh. Chander Mohan, R/o 38, Bhairu Vilas, Opposite K.V. No.1, Airforce, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 1 of 9
5. Sh. Anshul Rajwansh, S/o Sh. Chander Mohan, R/o 38, Bhairu Vilas, Opposite K.V. No.1, Airforce, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
6. Smt. Kareena Rajwansh, W/o Sh. Anshul Rajwansh, R/o 38, Bhairu Vilas, Opposite K.V. No.1, Airforce, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
.......Respondents Date of filing of revision petition : 21.02.2019 Date on which arguments were heard : 29.08.2023 Date of pronouncement of order on : 31.08.2023 revision petition ORDER ON REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED BY LD. MM-01, NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI IN CASE FIR NO.688/2014 PS PRASHANT VIHAR, DELHI WHEREBY THE LD. MM HAS DISCHARGED ALL THE ACCUSED PERSONS EXCEPT THE HUSBAND FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498A/406/34 IPC AND SECTION 3 OF THE PROHIBITION OF DOWRY ACT.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the revision petition being filed by the revisionist/complainant against the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 passed by ld. MM-01, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi in case 'State Vs. Atul Rajwansh & Anr.' whereby the ld. MM has discharged all the accused persons except the husband for the offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC and section 3 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act.
Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 2 of 92. The present revision petition has been filed on the following grounds :-
a) That, the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial court is based upon conjectures and surmises. The order passed by ld.
Trial court is not only contrary to law and facts but have resulted into a gross miscarriage of justice and the same is liable to be set aside.
b) That, the ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the argument advanced by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and the respondent no.2 to 5 were having active participation in the demand of dowry and for harassment for demand of dowry.
c) That, the ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that there are specific allegations against all the respondents/accused persons and on dated 09.11.2011, respondent no.3 stated that "Tina ab tum aaram kiya karo, tumhe kuch kaam karne ki zaroorat nahi hai. Hum tumhare liye Delhi se kaamwali le aaye hai" and these words were spoken just after three days of the marriage.
d) That the ld. Trial court has also failed to take a judicial notice of the fact that the respondent no.5 poured kerosene in kitchen on one day and tried to set fire by throwing a lighted camphor when the petitioner was cooking in the kitchen but because of timely sensing of fire by the complainant, she came out of the kitchen and the fire was doused off by the Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 3 of 9 complainant herself.
e) That the ld. Trial court has also failed to appreciate that the allegations of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint are that on the intervening night of 13-14 February, 2012, the respondent no.4, around 1 o' clock in the night opened the door of the room of the complainant and be seated himself near the complainant and in the meantime, during talks, he tried to press the complainant's chest to which she objected and warned him of the consequences.
f) That, the ld. Trial court has also failed that the respondent no.5 demanded Rs.20,00,000/- from the complainant to invest in Aqua, the Saloon and Spa Centre being run by the respondent and his family and because of avoidance by the complainant, she was being taunted everyday.
g) That, the ld. Trial court has also failed to appreciate that on dated 31.08.2012, the complainant was taunted by the respondent no.2 by stating that "tum aajkal ki ladkiyon ko aate he naukar chahiye, tum bilkul bhi kaam nahi karna cahti, do kaudi ki ladki hai aur do paise ki aukat nahi hai tumhari".
3. That, there are specific allegations against all the respondents but the ld. Trial court has ignored the same.
4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist/complainant has argued that at Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 4 of 9 the stage of framing of charge, the court has to consider prima facie case whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court does not have to, at that stage, appreciate the probative value of the material or the evidence to conclude whether the evidence is sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
By way of the present revision petition, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the ld. Trial court in case titled as 'State Vs. Atul & Ors.', FIR No.688/2014, PS Prashant Vihar whereby all the respondents except the husband were discharged from the said offence.
5. That, Ld. counsel for all the respondents has submitted that the respondent no.2 is the husband of complainant and was made party inadvertently as he has not been discharge vide impugned order dated 13.11.2018 and therefore, the respondent no.2 is deleted from the array of parties.
6. That, Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 to 6 has not filed the reply of the revision petition and argued the same straightaway. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 6 that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial court inasmuch as there are no specific allegation against the respondent no.3, 4, 5 and 6. The revision petition has been filed just to harass the respondents and the same may kindly be Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 5 of 9 dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made by ld. counsel for the revisionist, ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State as well as ld. Counsel for the respondents/accused and after gone through the averments of the revision petition and after gone through the trial court record as well as the impugned order dated 13.11.2018, this court is of the considered view that a written typed complaint was made by the complainant, wife of Sh. Atul Rajwansh to ACP, Dowry Cell, Sector-3, Rohini on dated 21.06.2014 stated therein that she has been married with namely Atul on dated 05.11.2011 at Rohini, Delhi and after the marriage, she had gone to Jodhpur to live with her husband but immediately after the marriage, her husband and also his family members started to harass her for demand of dowry.
8. It has been mentioned in para no.18 of the said typed complaint that when she refused to take money from her father, then, one day when she was cooking the food in Kitchen, then, her jethani Kareena poured the kerosene oil in the kitchen and put the camphor with fire and tried to burn her but she could have saved herself. The allegation in the said para 18 are not sustainable inasmuch as there is no specific date, time, month or year when her jethani poured the kerosene oil in the kitchen to give burn injuries to her.
Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 6 of 99. That, in the said typed complaint in para no.21, it has been mentioned that on 13-14 February, 2012 in the night at about 1.00 midnight, her jeth opened the door of her room and asked her about her husband whether he has come or not and under the pretext to talk with her, sit near to her and started to touch her breast. When she stopped him not to do so, then, she was threatened. So far as these allegations are concerned, had it been done this act by the jeth of the complainant, then, she ought to have made the complaint to the police on the same day or next day or thereafter but she did not make any complaint to the police on the next day or thereafter and she has only made the complaint on dated 21.06.2014 i.e. after the gap of two years and there is inordinate delay to make the complaint against her jeth to the Police and the allegation are not sustainable.
10. That, in the said typed complaint in para no.24, it has also been alleged that the complainant was tortured and was misbehaved and once her jethani Kareena demanded Rs.20 lakhs from her to invest in Aqua Saloon Center and when she refused to give the said money, then, she was harassed for demand of dowry. These allegations are also unsustainable on the ground that there is no specific date, month or year when Rs.20 lakhs alleged to have been demanded by the jethani namely Kareena from the complainant.
Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 7 of 911. That, the ld. Trial court has specifically mentioned in the impugned order that there are no specific allegations regarding entrustment of articles, misappropriation by the respondents Chandra Mohan, Rama, Anshul Rajwansh and Kareena Rajwansh. Ld. Trial court has also specifically mentioned in the impugned order that it is a settled law that mere taunts and simply demands do not constitute an offence punishable either u/s 498A IPC or u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. The law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Manoj Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi' Crl. Revision Petition No.48/2023 and Crl. Misc. Appl. 2339/2023, Crl. Misc. Appl. 1282/2023 and in another case 'Puneet Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi' Crl. Rev. Petition No.49/2023 and Crl. Misc. Appl. 1296/2023 decided on 07.08.2023 wherein it has been held that the grievance is primarily against the husband of complainant. It appears, prima facie, that the allegations so raised by the complainant are omnibus in nature. The initiation of criminal proceedings u/s 498A, 405 and 406 of IPC has become a frequent practice in the matters of matrimonial dispute and litigations.
13. That, this court is also of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the ld.
Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 8 of 9Trial court and this court has no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial court dated 13.11.2018. Therefore, the revision petition is without any merits. Hence, the same stands dismissed.
14. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial court for their record.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Satish Kumar) on 31.08.2023 Addl. Sessions Judge-03, (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Crl. Revision No.49/2019 Bharti Rajwansh Vs. State & Ors. Page No. 9 of 9