Delhi District Court
St. vs . Surender Etc. on 27 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNALI GUPTA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No. 321/05
PS SP Badli
St. Vs. Surender Etc.
JUDGEMENT :
1. Sl. No. of the Case : 950/2/07. 2. Date of Commission of Offence : 01.05.2005.
3. Name & Add. Of the Complainant : Ms. Rajni D/o Sh. Kamal Singh R/o H. No. 277, Village Badli, Delhi.
4. Name & Add. Of the Accused : 1. Surinder Kumar
2. Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
3. Krishna W/o Sh. Raj Kumar All R/o H. No. C-230, Gali No. 3, Village Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
5. Offence complained of : U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
6. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
7. Final Order : Acquitted.
8. Date of Order : 27.04.2011.
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
1. The present FIR was registered at PS SP Badli against accused persons namely Surender, Narender and Krishna for offences u/s. 498-A/406/34 IPC. The case was registered after the complaint was made to CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi by the complainant Smt. Rajni. After conducting proceedings, the CAW Cell referred the complaint to the SHO PS SP Badli for registration of the case whereupon the IO had made an endorsement and the Duty FIR No. 321/05 1/5...............
Officer had subsequently recorded the FIR. Gist of the complaint is as under:-
The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused Surender on 25.11.2003 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. All the necessary household articles and valuables were given at the time of marriage. After few days of marriage, accused persons started harassing her physically and mentally in context with demand of dowry. They took all her jewelery articles into their possession. On different occasions, she fulfilled their demands. On refusal, accused Surender tried to burn her with cigarette. The accused persons even scolded her not to make complaint to anyone otherwise she will be killed.
2. Investigation commenced and concluded by filing the charge sheet. Compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C was made.
Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s. 498-A/406/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they opted to face trial.
3. Prosecution evidence comprised of PW-1 Smt. Rajni, the complainant who deposed that on 25.11.2003 she got married with accused Surender Kumar Kashyap. There was some understanding between her and the accused persons due to that reason she lodged the present complaint against them. Now she is living separately from the accused and there is no dispute between her and the accused persons. As she was resiling from her previous statement, Ld. APP cross examined her. During cross examination, she stated FIR No. 321/05 2/5...............
that she made a complaint Ex. PW1/A to CAW Cell. She does not remember whether the accused persons had demanded money from her. She denied that accused persons ie., her husband Surender, mother in law Krishna and brother in law Narender used to harass her physically and mentally on pretext of bringing dowry. She denied her previous statement in toto. She further denied that accused persons had taken all her jewelery and valuables from her possession. List of dowry articles is Ex. PW1/B. She admitted that she had taken all her dowry articles from the accused vide list Ex. PW1/C. She also received a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- in the court vide Ex. PW1/D. She admitted that she compromised the matter. She denied that she told the police that accused demanded one vehicle and one Lac cash in dowry. She denied all the suggestions put to her.
4. PW-2 Sh. Kamal Singh, the father of the complainant deposed on the same lines as PW-1. He further stated that seizure memo of dowry articles Ex. PW1/C bear his signature. Ld. APP cross examined this witness as he was resiling from his previous statement. During cross examination, he admitted that his daughter had made a complaint to CAW Cell. He denied that accused persons used to demand money from her or from him. He denied that accused Surender as well as his family members used to harass her daughter physically and mentally on pretext of bringing dowry. He denied his previous statement Ex. PW2/A in toto. He further denied that he told the police that on demand of accused he gave several articles including Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. He further denied that the accused persons had not returned the dowry/istridhan articles of FIR No. 321/05 3/5...............
her daughter. He denied all the suggestions put to him.
5. PW-3 Smt. Sheela, the mother of the complainant has deposed on the same lines as PW-1 and PW-2. She was also cross examined by Ld. APP. During cross examination, nothing material came on record.
6. Since all the witnesses ie., the complainant as well as other public witnesses turned hostile, PE was closed by the order of court. Nothing incriminating came on record against the accused persons, hence, statement of accused persons were dispensed with. The matter was listed for final arguments.
7. Arguments heard on behalf of Ld. Defence counsel as well as Ld. APP.
8. Perused the entire evidence that has come on record. The witnesses ie., the complainant as well as her parents were examined by the prosecution. However, all of them turned hostile and did not give any incriminating statement against the accused persons. Even upon cross examination by Ld. APP, the complainant denied that the accused persons had demanded any money or was given beatings by them. Though, all these witnesses have turned hostile but it does not warrant taking any action against them for having turned hostile, the reason is that the matrimonial disputes stand on an altogether different footing and cannot be viewed from the same angle as other criminal cases. In matrimonial disputes, settlement is an avowed FIR No. 321/05 4/5...............
objective. The involvement of parties in litigation also harms the parties themselves and is counter productive and as it diminishes the possibility of amicable settlement.
9. In view of the discussion above, prosecution failed to prove that accused persons had committed alleged offence. Accordingly, the accused persons stand acquitted of the offences U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. Their Bail Bonds stand canceled. Sureties stand discharged. Security if any, be returned forthwith. Endorsement if any made be canceled. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court today on 27.04.2011.
(SHUNALI GUPTA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No. 321/05 5/5............... FIR No. 321/05 PS SP Badli St. Vs. Surender Etc. U/s. 498-A/406/34 IPC 23.04.2011 Present: Ld. APP for the State. All accused present along with counsel.
PW-1 Ms. Rajni, PW-2 Sh. Kamal Singh and PW-3 Smt. Sheela examined and discharged. Perused the evidence on record. Since all the witnesses turned hostile, further leading evidence would be a futile exercise. Accordingly, PE stands closed. Since nothing incriminating came on record against the accused persons, hence, their statements are hereby dispensed with. Final arguments heard. Put up for orders on 27.04.2011.
(SHUNALI GUPTA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
27.04.2011 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All accused present along with counsel.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court today, the accused persons stand acquitted of the Offences U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. Their Bail Bonds are hereby canceled. Sureties stand discharged. Documents, if any, be returned forthwith. Endorsement, if any on the documents of surety be canceled. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
(SHUNALI GUPTA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No. 321/05 6/5...............