Delhi District Court
Manisha Chawla vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 February, 2022
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
New ID Crl. (R) No. 60/2020
Manisha Chawla
W/o Sh. Rahul Chawla
R/o H. NO.177, Gopal Park,
Chander Nagar, Delhi - 110051
............... Revisionist
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
Through
SHO P.S. Jagat Puri.
2. Rahul Chawla
S/o Rajesh Chawla.
3. Rajesh Chawla
S/o Late Harbans Lal
4. Sneha Chawla
W/o Rajesh Chawla
5. Gaurav Chawla
S/o Rajesh Chawla
6. Avneet Kaur
W/o Gaurav Chawla
Respondent no.2 to 6 are Resident of :
House No. 117, 2nd floor, Vivek Vihar
Delhi110092.
............... Respondents
Date of filing : 02.08.2021
Date of arguments : 28.01.2022
Date of order : 04.02.2022
For the Petitioner : Adv. Mr. Mohd. Ali
For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Addl.
PP.
For the Respondent no.2 to 6 : Adv. Mr. Trilok Chand.
RAVINDER Digitally signed by
RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2022.02.04 16:50:18
+0530
____________________________________________________________________
CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 1 of 9
2
ORDER
1. The present criminal revision petition is preferred by petitioner (Complainant) under Section 397 Cr. PC against the order dated 11.01.2020 passed by Ld. MM01, Shahdara District, KKD, whereby Ld. MM discharged Gaurav Chawla (Jeth) and Ms. Avneet Kaur @ Avneet Chawla (jethani) from all charges and Complainant's fatherinlaw Mr. Rajesh Chawla of the charges under Section 406/34 IPC.
2. Necessary facts in brief leading to file the present petition are that the Complainant had filed a criminal complaint dated 12.10.2017 with CAW Cell against all Respondents wherein she alleged cruelty and harassment on account of demands besides allegations of allegations of beating and threatening her. A case FIR No. 228/2018 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered on the basis of said complaint at P.S. Jagat Puri against Respondents and after conclusion of investigation, police had filed chargesheet on 16.04.2019 against the Respondents. Ld. Trial court summoned the Respondents and after hearing, by order dated 11.01.2021, discharged accused Gaurav Chawla and Avneet Kaur (Jeth and Jethani) of the charges and further discharged fatherinlaw of Complainant, of the offence under Section 406 IPC.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, Complainant has filed the instant petition seeking directions to set aside the impugned order.
Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2022.02.04
16:50:27 +0530
____________________________________________________________________ CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 2 of 9 3
4. Counsel Mr. Ali appearing for Complainant has assailed the order on the grounds taken in the revision which are as under: • that the order is erroneous and suffers from irregularity and thus non sustainable under law.
• that Ld. trial court ignored that the Complainant had named all Respondents in her complaint dated 12.10.2017 before CAW Cell and jointly referred to them as 'sasural walo' in almost every paragraph of complaint. The word 'sasural walo' means all family members of Complainant's husband.
• that sisterinlaw of Complainant was residing in the same house when the alleged incidents happened with Complainant. Ld. trial Court ignored the fact that both jeth and jethani namely Gaurav Chawla and Avneet Chawla played almost exact role to harass the Complainant.
• that there is no need to mention specific roles of accused persons in every paragraph of complaint and that all accused had intended to commit crimes against Complainant and they were equally liable.
5. Counsel for Complainant submits that police after completion of investigation had filed chargesheet against all accused persons which itself establishes the factum of there being sufficient evidence against all of them. He submits that police dropped the name of accused Richa Chawla (nanad) from the list of accused persons and she was kept in column no.12 of the challan. Complainant moved an application for summoning of Richa Chawla as an accused, however the said application was dismissed by the Ld. trial court by order dated 11.01.2020. Counsel submits that a separate criminal revision petition no.
RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI ____________________________________________________________________ BEDI Date: 2022.02.04 16:50:39 +0530 CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 3 of 9 4 100/2020 has been filed before this court challenging the said order. Counsel for Complainant has argued on the line of grounds taken in the petition and has submitted that trial court at the stage of consideration of charges could not have entered into the question as to whether the material on record would lead to conviction.
6. Counsel for Respondent no.2 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondents') on the other hand objects to the maintainability of the petition by contending that the order in question being an interlocutory order, the same is not amenable to revision. Secondly, it is contended that the revision petition at the instance of Complainant is not maintainable and it is only the State which can file a revision or appeal if aggrieved against the impugned order. Counsel has brought out the relevant facts and referred to the first complaint of Complainant filed before CAW Cell and contended that Complainant resided at her matrimonial home only for 2 months and left with her father on 22.06.2017 of her own accord. He argued that the allegations against Respondents were only vague and at the stage of framing of charges, the trial court could only have to consider the matter by taking prima facie view and not by weighing the evidence meticulously.
7. Counsel for Complainant filed written submissions on 25.01.2022 alongwith judgments to contend that the trial court failed to appreciate that the complaint or an FIR was not an encyclopedia of the matter but was only an initial information. He argued that complainant was not expected to write her complaint taking care of legal aspects and had lodged the same with Police Station concerned by referring to all accused persons as 'sasural walo' . Reliance is placed upon the judgments rendered Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.02.04 ____________________________________________________________________ 16:50:48 +0530 CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 4 of 9 5 by Hon'ble Superior Courts which are as follows: • K. Pandrangan and Ors. Vs. S.S.R. Velusamy and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC625.
• Durga Devi Vs. Vinod Kumar and Ors. 121 (2005) DLT 484 • Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. AIR 2021 SC 2351 • Amar Nath and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors. (1977) 4SCC
137. • Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 • Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande & ors. Vs. Uttam and ors.
(1999) 3 SCC 134.
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Girdharilal Sapuru and ors.
(1981) 2 SCC 758.
8. I have heard Counsel for the Petitioner, Ld. Addl. PP for State, Adv. for R2 to R6 and have perused the entire record carefully in the light of judgments relied upon.
9. In Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v.
Anil Kumar Bhunja (1980) 1 SCR 323 a threeJudge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court at the stage of framing charges only has to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer.
Thus the trial court is only to consider the sufficiency of material to establish the offences alleged against accused persons.
10. As to the plea of Respondents that present revision petition cannot be instituted at the instance of Complainant, reliance can be placed on the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Pandurangan etc. Vs. S.S.R. Velusamy RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.02.04 16:50:56 ____________________________________________________________________ +0530 CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 5 of 9 6 and Anr. reported in 2003 Cr.LJ 4964 wherein it is observed that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the revisional Court even at the instance of Complainant or an outsider. Hence the plea of Respondents is not tenable under law. Another objection of Respondents that the impugned order being an interlocutory and revision thus not maintainable, is equally untenable in view of priciples laid down in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 and Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. AIR 2021 SC 2351 (DOD on 07.05.2021 by Hon'ble Apex Court). The correct position of law has been laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra) inter alia that the orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and therefore are not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) Cr. PC.
11. Looking into the impugned order, the Ld. Trial court observed that from record, necessary elements constituting an offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC were attracted against accused Sneha Chawla. However, there were no specific allegations against accused Gaurav Chawla, Avneet Chawla for the alleged offences and thus they were discharged of the offences. The complaint dated 12.10.2017 filed by Complainant with CAW Cell which became the basis of registration of FIR would indicate that allegations against both Avneet Chawla and Gaurav Chawla were only general and vague without any specific instances of any acts of cruelty or harassment alleged against them.
12. The Complainant was married to Rahul Chawla on 04.04.2017 but remained in her matrimonial home only for a period of about 2 months. Though Complainant has not mentioned in her entire complaint as to when she left her matrimonial home, however same is discernible from her Digitally signed by ____________________________________________________________________ RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors.
BEDI Page 6 ofDate:
9 2022.02.04 16:51:11 +0530 7 complaint and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC in which she stated that she left her matrimonial home alongwith her father on 22.06.2017. The genesis of the case is the complaint dated 12.10.2017 in which Complainant mentioned in every paragraph starting with 'mere sasural walo ne' and such vague allegations were insufficient without having any specific role having been attributed to either of the accused persons as to the mode or the manner in which she was alleged to be harassed. The trial court observed that complainant merely alleged that accused persons would taunt her and accused Gaurav would drink alcohol with coaccused Rajesh Chawla in her room. These allegations without any specifics were not sufficient enough for charging them for the alleged offences.
13. This court has looked into the judgments filed on behalf of Complainant in support of submissions and observe that law is no more res integra in respect of the settled position as is laid down in catena of judgments including Remembrancer of Legal Affairs (supra) that while considering the question of framing charges, the trial court has undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence only for the limited purpose of finding out if a prima facie case against accused is made out or not. It is also settled position under law that if by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused.
14. The complainant alleged entrustment of dowry articles and their subsequent refusal by coaccused persons. The offence of criminal breach of trust is when a person who is entrusted in any manner with property or with dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts its to his own use as ____________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. BEDI Page 7 of 9 Date: 2022.02.04 16:51:24 +0530 8 was explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Joy Shanker Bhattacharyajee (AIR 1971 SC 1543).
15. Full Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vinod Kumar Sethi and others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1982 Punjab 372 had observed that between the husband and the wife there is always a jointness of control and possession of the properties of the spouse within the matrimonial home and that it goes against the very concept of entrustment of his or her property by one spouse to the other.
Mere handing over of the articles of dowry to the husband and other relatives at the time of marriage does not constitute entrustment in the sense of the word used in the Section 405 IPC and it does not amount to passing of dominion over those articles to them. Such entrustment can only be by subsequent conscious volition but in the absence of such an act, the allegations of breach of trust cannot be sustained.
16. In present case there are no averments whatsoever to even prima facie show that complainant had ever entrusted her articles to the accused Rajesh Chawla or that she had demanded them back despite which the articles were not returned. Merely not taking her goods at the time of leaving her house would not be sufficient to even prima facie make out the charges under Section 406 IPC.
17. In the case of Jagjit Singh Vs Ravinder Kaur II(2004) DMC 599( J&K) the wife had claimed that various dowry articles had been given to her at the time of marriage and that she was not treated well by the accused persons i.e. her husband and family members after her marriage and they made dowry demands and finally she was turned out of her matrimonial RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.02.04 ____________________________________________________________________ 16:51:33 +0530 CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 8 of 9 9 home without her dowry articles being returned to her. It was observed that these averments in itself were not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC.
18. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taramani Parekh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 260, it was observed as under:
"In Matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple."
Considering thus, this court finds that trial court rightly passed the order of discharging the accused Rajesh Chawla for the offence under Section 406/34 IPC and accused Avneet Chawla and Gaurav Chawla for the offences under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. Complainant has not been able to point out any irregularity, illegality or error in the impugned order.
19. Resultantly, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the order dated 11.01.2021 regarding the discharge of accused persons as discussed above. Accordingly, the revision petition deserves dismissal.
20. The same stands dismissed. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and Ld. Judge will hear the matter as per law without being guided by any observations made in this Order.
21. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2022.02.04
16:51:43 +0530
Announced in the open court (Ms.Ravinder Bedi)
through VC on 04.02.2022 ASJ02/ECOURT
Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
____________________________________________________________________ CR No.60/2020 Manisha Chawla Vs. State and ors. Page 9 of 9