Delhi District Court
(I) Smt. Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora on 31 March, 2012
ID No. 02406R0310262011
ID No. 02406R0324832011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 62/2011
ID No. 02406R0310262011
(I) Smt. Kirtika Singh ,
W/o Sh. Jagjit Singh ,
C/o Sh. Trilok Chand Sharma
R/o H. N. 72, Ground Floor Flat,
Taimoor Nagar, New Friends Colony
New Delhi 110025 ..........Revisionist
Versus
Jyoti Arora
d/o Sh. Jaikishan ..........Respondent No. 1
Kalawati
w/o Sh. Jaikishan
both r/o r/o H. No. 921, Sector - 14,
Hissar (Haryana) ...........Respondent no. 2
and
Criminal Revision No. 76/2011
ID No. 02406R0324832011
(II) Jai Kishan,
S/o Sh. Hari Ram,
R/o 921, Sector14,
Hisar, Haryana. ..............Revisionist
Versus
State
Government of NCT of Delhi. ..........Respondent No. 1
Kritika
D/o Sh. Hawa Singh,
R/o 1239, Sector14,
Hisar, Haryana. ..........Respondent No. 2
Instituted on : 24th December, 2011
Argued on : 28th March, 2012
Decided on : 31st March, 2012
Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011
Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 1/14
ID No. 02406R0310262011
ID No. 02406R0324832011
ORDER
1. These two criminal revision petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 23.09.2011 passed by Ms.Pooja Talwar, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi arising out of charge sheet submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 667/07 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC police station Hazrat Nizamuddin. Vide the impugned order Sh. Jagjit Singh/husband and Sh. Jai Kisahn/father in law of Ms. Kirtika complainant/wife have been summoned . One revision petition (no. CR 62 of 2011) has been preferred by complainant/wife and other revision petition (no. CR 76 of 2011) is preferred by Sh. Jai Kishan, fatherinlaw of complainant. These two separate petitions are disposed of vide this common order as parties are common and both the petitioners have challenged one order dated 23.09.2011.
2. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. Ranbir Kundu, Learned Counsel for Sh. Jai Kishan/father in law, Sh. M. S. Sisodia, Ld. Counsel and Ms. Kirtika, complainant herself as well as Sh.WasiUrRehman, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and have perused the trial Court record with their assistance. .
3. Background facts, relevant for the disposal of these revision petitions are that Ms.Kirtika got married with Sh. Jagjit at Hisar on 20.04.2006 and out of the wed lock, one girl child was born. Sh. Jai Kishan /fatherinlaw is residing at Hisar and is a retired Government Servant. Criminal Law was set into motion by the complainant/wife on 21.09.2007 by lodging a complaint with the ACP, CAW Cell, New Delhi whereupon FIR No. 667/2007, PS H.N. Din was registered on 28.11.2007 u/s 468A/406 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer on 06.07.2009, wherein neither Jai Kishan/ fatherinlaw nor Smt. Kalawati/mother in law and Ms. Jyoti Arya/sister in law were charge sheeted. Charge sheet noted that there was no sufficient evidence against these persons, therefore, they were kept in Column No. 12 thereof.
4. Learned Trial Court summoned husband/Jagjit Singh, on 06.07.2009 and passed following order :
"Perusal of charge sheet, documents and material placed on record shows Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 2/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 that there are sufficient material on record to take cognizance of the offence against accused Jagjit Singh. Hence, I take cognizance of the offence against accused Jagjit Singh."
5. On 22.09.2009, complainant/wife moved an application for summoning other family members of the husband namely fatherinlaw, mother inlaw and sisterinlaw. This application was dismissed by Learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.09.2009. Aggrieved with the said order dated 22.09.2009 as well as 06.07.2009, a revision petition was preferred by the complainant/wife, which was disposed of by Ld. ASJ vide order dated 15.10.2009. She remanded the case back to Ld. Trial Court for passing a reasoned order. Pursuant to this order passed by Learned ASJ, Trial Court summoned all the family members namely revisionist Jai Kishan fatherinlaw, Smt. Kalawati motherinlaw and Jyoti Arya sisterinlaw. Learned Trial Court passed following order on 26.10.2009 , "Perusal of documents and material placed on record primafacie shows that there are sufficient material on record to take cognizance against accused Jyoti , Nanad (sister in law), Kalawati (mother in law) and Jai Kishan (father in law). Hence, I take cognizance against accused Jyoti , Kalawati and Jai Kishan. The cognizance against accused Jagjit singh had already been taken vide order dated 06.07.2009, therefore, let summons be issued to accused Jyoti , Kalwati and Jai Kishan."
6. Aggrieved with order dated 15.10.2009 passed by Learned ASJ and order dated 26.10.2009 passed by Learned Trial Court, Sh. Jai Kishan (fatherin law), Smt. Kalawati (motherinlaw) and Ms. Jyoti Arya (sisterinlaw) preferred a petition u/s 428 Cr.P.C before the Hon'ble High Court. Vide order dated 30.11.2009, the impugned orders were stayed. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 08.07.2010, remanded back the case the to the Court of Learned ASJ to hear the petitioners and to pass order after hearing, observing, "Learned ASJ left nothing for the Magistrate to appreciate and had expressed her opinion about sufficiency of evidence against the accused persons."
Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 3/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011
7. Pursuant to this order, Learned ASJ again remanded the case back to the Learned Trial Court with directions to hear parties and pass a reasoned order. Finally, Learned Trial Court passed impugned order dated 23.09.2011. this time Learned Trial Court summoned the revisionist/fatherinlaw apart from husband/Jagjit. Impugned order reads as under:
"Through this order I shall decide the summoning of the accused person. As per the direction of Ld. ASJ, both the parties including accused as well as complainant were heard on the point of summoning. I have gone through the original complaint of the complainant dated 21.09.2007 on the basis of which the FIR was registered, as well as the statements u/s 161 CrPC of the witnesses. In the complaint dated 21.09.2007, the complainant has levelled allegations of both physical and mental abuse against the husband. She had also made a reference of transfer of Rs.1,65,000/ to the account of her father in law and has even referred about a flat which she was asked to buy at the insistence of her father in law and husband. There are general allegations against all the other accused persons besides the allegations of demand of flat by husband and father in law.
This demand of flat has been further clarifies in the statement u/s 161 CrPC of the complainant as well as her father Hava Singh. From the allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint as well as her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie offence appears to be made out against husband and father in law. As far as mother in law is concerned, there is no allegation against her. Regarding sister in law, there are allegations of taunting and harassment. Statement of the landlord of the complainant has been recorded wherein he has stated that the sister in law was not residing permanently with the couple but she used to visit off and on. No specific allegation of harassment has been mentioned or that a demand was raised by sister in law except for general allegations against all the proposed accused. Even the in laws were not residing with the couple who had after two months of the marriage had shifted to Delhi. From the material place before me, I take cognizance of offence against accused husband Jagjit and father in law Jai Kishan. The said accused persons be summoned and notice be served to their sureties for 06.01.2012."
8. Aggrieved with this order, Sh. Jai Kishan fatherinlaw preferred one revision whereas another revision petitions has been preferred by the complainant/wife. She is aggrieved as the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw have not been summoned by the Learned Trial Court.
Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 4/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011
9. At the outset, I heard both the parties in person to explore the possibility of reconciliation, if any, but since no settlement could be arrived at, I proceed to hear Learned counsels for the parties on merits.
10. Complainant/wife submitted that inlaws were spreading humors about her personal character. She submitted that Learned Trial Court took selective cognizance only against two of the four accused . It is submitted that IO put the respondents in column no. 12 despite clear, unambiguous and specific averments of torture and harassment for demand of dowry . She submitted that Ms Jyoti ( sister in law) was responsible for the discord and her marital life sufferings. It is submitted that after marriage, complainant started living with her husband at C75, Sector 26, NOIDA and they lived up to 15.08.006. Thereafter, complainant/wife shifted to other rented property in Delhi and at O16B, 2nd floor, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi. She submits that the order of summoning is bad in law. Complainant/wife submits that soon after the marriage, her father in law, mother in law and sister law demanded money for flat. It is alleged that they harassed and put pressure upon her for purchase of flat .They abused about quality of gifts given by the parents of complaint/wife. She submits that on 16.08.2007, she was beaten up by her sister in law when she was pregnant and tried to throw her out of the house. complainant/wife submits that her sister in law physically and mentally tortured her to bring more dowry. complainant/wife submitted that her stridhan, and keys of the locker and her personal belongings measuring over Rs. Four lacs were with her inlaws and IO had not investigated the case properly.
11. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submit that on 21.09.2007 complainant lodged a complaint with the Crime against Woman Cell against her mother in law Smt. Kalawati and her sister in law Ms. Jyoti and FIR NO. 667/2007 was registered on 28.11.2007. It is submitted that on 06.07.2009, challan u/s 173 Cr. P. C was filed and respondents were put in column no. 12 of the charge sheet as no evidence was found and no cognizance was taken by Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Counsel submits that Ms. Jyoti/sister in law never lived with complainant/wife except for three days at the time of marriage as she used to Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 5/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 lead independent life style . It is submitted that on 21.09.2007, complainant/wife lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the respondents. He submits that the grounds of summoning referred by Ld. Trial Court do not constitute an offence punishable under section 498A and 406 IPC. Ld. Counsel submits that in charge sheet, IO mentioned that the "complainant has failed/refused to provide sufficient evidence to support her allegation in respect of the list of articles submitted by her. No substantiated evidence can be procured against father in law, mother in law and sister in law in the present case. In the present case, due to complainant's insistence in her compliant, their names are kept in column no. 12." Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that Ld. Trial Court observed that "even the in laws were not residing with the couple who after two months of the marriage had shifted to Delhi." He submits that Ld. Trial Court made a cursory glance in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. and the allegations leveled in FIR are inconsistent and indistinct. Complainant admitted that father in law , mother in law and sister in law had tried to convince/coerce her husband and to fund for purchase of AWHO Flat (the exclusive use of which is for defence personal only and commercialization of these flat is a severe violation) for her brother. Complainant admitted that delivery of payment of Rs. 1,65,000/ as "contribution" . Complainant admitted that this amount was refunded back to her and could not be treated as an offence under section 406/498A IPC. The allegations for harassing complainant/wife for not bringing enough dowry does not constitute any offence under section 498A IPC as there was complete absence of proof of demand of dowry by Sh. Jai Kishan father in law and the same has been specified in the charge sheet. Sh. Kundu submits that allegations leveled in the FIR for not bringing any articles, money by the complainant/wife, for establishing an offence of criminal breach of trust under section 405 and 406 IPC i.e. entrustment with property and subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion to their own use. He submitted that the essential ingredients of section 406 IPC are discussed in "Bhaskar Lal Sharma & another vs Monica" SLP (Crl.) Nos. 41254126 of 2008 decided on 27.07.2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. IO had put father in law, mother in law and sister in law in column no. 12 of the charge sheet as no Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 6/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 incriminating evidence was found against them and Ld. Trial court took cognizance without considering the material on record. He submits that there has been a complete non application of mind by Ld. Trial Court as no incriminating evidence was available on the record to substantiate the allegations and no specific allegation were made against mother in law and sister in law in the complaint before the CAW Cell upon the said FIR was registered.
12. Ld. Counsel for Sh. Jai Kishan/father in law referred Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and others vs State and another Cri. M. C. No. 265453/2005 wherein Hon'ble High Court observed that "Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section." In Pashaura Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 244 it was observed that "only allegations of harassing for not bringing more dowry and in the absence of any specific demand for dowry no offence under section 498A is made out."
13. In "Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others" (1983) 1 SCC 1, it was observed that, issuing process by criminal courts is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken." In "Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Special Judicial Magistrate and ors. AIR 1998 SC 128, it was held that Summoning of an accused in criminal cases is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be sent into motion as a matter of course. Magistrate has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused."
14. In Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) Crimes 110, their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of the Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 7/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed.
15. The ingredients of Section 498A are as follows:
"498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation For the purpose of this section 'cruelty' means (a) 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 (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
16. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act reads as under:
"2. Definition of "dowry"In this Act "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (shariat) applies."
Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 8/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011
17. Under Explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC, the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Explanation (b) of Section 498A IPC provides that cruelty means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a vie to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section. Precondition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498A, IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as held by the Supreme Court in the decision report as Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy, AIR 1998 SC 121. In said case, it was observed that cruelty under Section 498A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
18. The expressions "harassment" and "cruelty" have been dealt with and explained by our High Court in `Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand and Ors' 2003 CrLJ 2759 wherein it was observed:
"For the purpose of Section 498A IPC which is peculiar to Indian families victim spouse is always the 'wife' and guilty is the husband and his relativesnear or distant, living together or separately. Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated under Section 498A are of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage i.e. Divorce. In constituting 'cruelty' contemplated by Section 498A IPC the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life; limb or health pr cause 'grave' injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 9/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 only that such acts or conduct should be "willful" i.e intentional. So to invoke provisions of Section 498A IPC the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health. Further conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is of much graver nature than that causing grave injury or endangering life, limb or physical or mental health. It involves series of systematic, persistent and willful acts perpetrated with a view to make the life of the woman so burdensome or insupportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life. Similarly offence of 'harassment' is peculiar to Indian conditions and society where evil of dowry and its perpetuation through customary gifts or demands is widely prevalent and is eating the very vitals of matrimony and tearing familial social fabric apart. To curb this evil, the acts of not only the husband but the entire household have been brought within the net of "harassment of a woman" if done to coerce her or her relatives to fulfill the unlawful demands for property or valuable security. The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through constant interference or intimidation. If such tormentation is done with a view to 'coerce' any person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to "harassment" as contemplated by Section 498A . Word 'Coercion' means persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or threats. Thus to constitute "harassment" following ingredients are essential:
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation;
(ii) Such act should be with a view to pursue or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or valuable security.
Only allegation against the respondents is that they did not like the clothes brought by the petitioner as customary gifts for relatives of the husband. One of the sistersinlaw remarked that had the marriage taken place with her sister, more dowry would have been received. These allegations when tested on the anvil of aforesaid tests, do not make out a case of either 'cruelty' or 'harassment' as contemplated by Section 498A IPC Nonacceptance of gifts might have hurt her feelings and other remarks might have been unkindly and incisive but by no stretch of imagination, such a conduct Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 10/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 involves any of the ingredients of either offence under Section 498A IPC or 406 IPC. Neither such an act or conduct has the effect of driving the woman to commit suicide nor of causing grave injury nor, is likely to cause danger to life or limb nor did it amount to tormenting her either physically or mentally to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill the demands of any property or valuable security."
It was further observed that "the legislature was mindful of the fact and situation that this provision may be exploited that it defined 'cruelty' and for that purpose "harassment" falling within the parameters of "intentional conduct' "of such a degree that may either drive the woman to commit suicide or cause danger to life, limb or health or cause 'grave' injury. Of course "health" means not only physical but mental also. But unfortunately, these provisions have been abused by the Investigating and Prosecuting Agencies and exploited by the women and their relatives to such an extent that these have proved to be most ineffective in curbing the evil of dowry as well as disciplining the husband and his relatives to treat the woman in human and humane manner and give the bride or wife proper respect and honour."
19. In Ramesh & Ors. Vs. State of T. N., (2005) 3 SCC 507, it was observed that :
"Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant Gowri Ramswamy. Looking at the allegations in the FIR and the contents of charge sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences viz. Section 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant's husband, who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time i.e. between March and October, 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and illtreatment of the informant by her sisterinlaw (the appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the FIR is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to was WC and she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as "even if Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 11/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 you have got much jewellery, you are out slave". It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sisterinlaw Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sisterinlaw seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed."
20. In Preeti Gupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another in Cri. Appeal no. 1512/2010, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :
"The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaint. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trial lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filing by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 12/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011
21. Ld. Trial Court has only observed that complainant made reference of the transfer of Rs. 1,65,000/ to the account of her father in law and even referred about a flat which she was about to buy at the instance of her father in law and her husband. There are general allegations against all the other accused besides allegations of demand of flat by father in law and husband. Allegations are general and omnibus in nature . Apart from general allegations, complainant/wife only stated that "before April 2007, she used to give her monthly salary to her husband and used to share in all expenses. She also transferred Rs. 1,65,000/ to her father in law in February 2007. She stated that they first denied that she gave them any money but later when asked publicly they had to agree because this transfer was done by cheque and this was reflected in her bank statements so they returned it back and since then, the physical and mental torture became worse."
22. On considering the submissions made at bar and perusal of record, this Court finds that there is no sufficient material on record to proceed further against Sh. Jai Kishan/father in law, Smt. Kalawati/mother in law and Ms. Jyoti Arya/sister in law. There was no sufficient evidence against these accused, that is why they were kept in column no. 12 of charge sheet. At the outset on 06.07.2009, Ld. Trial court had rightly not summoned father in law. Admittedly, in laws were not residing with the couple who had shifted to Delhi soon after the marriage. There is no satisfactory evidence to record to show that any harassment or cruelty was committed by Jai Ksihan/father in law as well as Smt. Kalawati/mother in law and Ms. Jyoti/sister in law or that it was with a view to coerce complainant/wife to meet demand of dowry. On the face of it, delivery of alleged Rs. 1,65,000/ seems to be a contribution towards the purchase of flat and indisputably, even the said amount was refunded back to complainant/wife. Summoning of an accused in criminal case indeed, is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. For summoning an accused, who is not charge sheeted, Ld. Trial Court had to reflect her 'thought process' and was required to give cogent reasons as to why he was being summoned.
Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 13/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011
23. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, this court finds that there was no satisfactory and sufficient material on record to proceed further against Sh. Jai Kishan /father in law and Learned Trial Court correctly declined to summon Kalawati/mother in law and Ms. Jyoti/sister in law. Thus, impugned order whereby, Sh. Jai Kishan/father in law is ordered to be summoned, deserves to be setaside and recalled. Order accordingly. Learned Trial shall proceed further in accordance with law as far Sh. Jagjit/husband is concerned. In the result, revision petition filed by Ms. Kirtika complainant/wife is dismissed and revision petition filed by Jai Kishan/father in law is allowed. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision files be consigned to record room.
announced in the (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) open court on Additional Sessions Judge04 st 31 March 2012 (SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi
Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 14/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 CR no. 62/11 Smt. Kirtika vs Smt. Jyoti and ors.
31.03.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Respondent in person .
Vide common order dictated and announced, this revision petition is dismissed . TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04(SE) Saket Court/New Delhi:31.03.2012 Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 15/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 CR no. 76/11 Jai Kishan vs State 31.03.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Respondent in person .
Vide common order dictated and announced, this revision petition is allowed. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04(SE) Saket Court/New Delhi:31.03.2012 Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 16/14 ID No. 02406R0310262011 ID No. 02406R0324832011 CR no. 62/11 Smt. Kirtika vs Smt. Jyoti and ors.
31.03.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
Respondent in person .
Vide separate order revision petition filed by Ms. Kirtika complainant/wife is dismissed TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision files be consigned to record room.
(Vinay Kumar Khanna) Additional Sessions Judge04(SE) Saket Court/New Delhi:20.03.2012 Kirtika Singh vs Jyoti Arora and ors. CR No. 62 of 2011 Jai Kishan vs State and ors. CR No. 76 of 2011 17/14