Delhi District Court
Kamal Singh vs Anjali on 3 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03: WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01- 006048-2023
Crl. Revision No. 415-2023
PS- Anand Parbat
U/s. 397 Cr. P. C.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Kamal Singh
.............Revisionist/Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Anjali
R/o 8/225, Street 3, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
2. Asha
R/o 8/225, Street 3, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
3. Mohit
R/o 8/225, Street 3, Punjabi Basti,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
4. Kishore Kumar
R/o 271/17, Gali no. 2 Than Singh
Nagar, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005.
5. Vicky N
R/o 271/17, Gali no. 2 Than Singh
Nagar, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005.
6. Sunita
R/o 61N, Block-61, Central Government
Residential Complex Raja Bazar,
Sector-4, Gol Market, GPO Complex,
New Delhi-110023.
CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.1/11
7. State of NCT of Delhi
Through DCP Central District Delhi.
............Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.07.2023
Date of Reserving Order : 18.03.2024
Date of Order : 03.04.2024
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION U/s. 397 Cr. P.C.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED BY
LD. ACMM, WEST, IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 482/2021,
PS- ANAND PARBAT, TITLED AS KAMAL SINGH VS.
ANJALI & ORS.
ORDER:
1. Revisionist Kamal Singh is aggrieved by impugned order dated 22.06.2023 passed by Ld. ACMM, West, THC, Delhi whereby in complaint case bearing no. CC No. 482/2021 PS- Anand Parbat titled as Kamal Singh Vs. Anjali & Ors. whereby his complaint case u/s 200 CrPC was dismissed and the summoning of the alleged accused persons was denied.
2. The revisionist herein is the complainant before the Ld. Trial Court while the respondents are the alleged accused persons before Ld. Trial Court. State has been impleaded as respondent no.7 in the present revision petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred by their nomenclature before Ld. Trial Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the complainant had filed a complaint case bearing CC No. 482/2021 under section 200 Cr. P. C. against the alleged accused persons alleging commission of cognizable offences. The complaint case was accompanied with an CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.2/11 application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C which was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 04.02.2022 and matter was proceeded further for recording of pre-summoning evidence.
4. The allegations in the complaint are that the alleged accused persons had played a big matrimonial fraud and duped the complainant and cheated him of his jewelery worth Rs.4.5 Lakhs and cash of Rs.50000/- and several other gift items. The alleged accused persons targetted the complainant in the month of January, 2020 and by inducement made the complainant to enter into a matrimonial alliance with alleged accused no.1 on 16.06.2020 during lockdown. After marriage, alleged accused no.1 stayed with the complainant only for two months and did not let the marriage to be consummated and thereafter fled away on 15.08.2020 leaving the matrimonial house alongwith jewelery worth Rs.4.5 Lakhs and cash of Rs.50000/-. Thereafter she started blackmailing the complainant and demanding Rs.7 Lakhs in the garb of settlement for mutual divorce and also refused to accept that she was in possession of the jewelery given to her by the complainant and his family members in marriage. Alleged accused no.1 also threatened to falsely implicate the complainant in false criminal cases in case her demand of Rs.7 Lakhs was not fulfilled. The matter was duly reported to the police but no action was taken. The alleged accused no.1 had left her matrimonial home on 15.08.2020 deliberately deserting the complainant without any reason and without informing the complainant. While leaving she took alongwith her four gold bangles worth Rs.2.5 Lakhs, one earring set, one diamond ring with gold, one gold ring with American diamond, gold pendate (mangalsutra) all collectively worth Rs.1.5 Lakhs and cash of Rs.50000/-. Despite repeated efforts the alleged accused no.1 refused to join the CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.3/11 company of the complainant. Complainant filed a petition under Section 9 HMA but despite service alleged accused no.1 did not appear before the said court. The complainant started demanding Rs.7 Lakhs in the garb of settlement for mutual divorce. Since no action was taken on the complaint dated 20.02.2020 made by the complainant with the police authorities, the present application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was filed seeking directions for registration of FIR.
PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE:
5. After dismissal of application u/s 156(3) CrPC, the complainant led pre-summoning evidence thereby examining himself as CW-1. In his pre-summoning evidence, complainant stated and reiterated on oath the allegations made in the complaint. He deposed that alleged accused no. 1 had never come to the matrimonial home with the intention to live as his wife and her conduct during her two months stay at the matrimonial home suggested the complainant of her pre-
meditated mind of having a short term plan to live in the matrimonial home. Complainant also deposed that he suspect that alleged accused no.1 had married him solely for the purpose of procuring jewellery items from his mother which were shown to her by his mother. He further deposed that on 07.07.2021, after receipt of summons and copy of petition u/s 9 HMA filed by the complainant, alleged accused no. 1, as a counterblast, and in order to extort illegal money from the complainant filed a police complaint dated 11.02.2021 before CAW Cell making false and baseless allegations just to blackmail the complainant and started demanding Rs. 7.5 lakhs in the garb of settlement for mutual divorce. Complainant duly reported these demands to CAW Cell and other police authorities. Complainant/CW-1 also deposed CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.4/11 that alleged accused no.1 is selling the jewellery articles given by him and his family to her and the receipt of consideration is reflected in her bank statement. She had also used derogatory remarks against the complainant over social media. The fact of previous marriage of alleged accused no. 1 and her two daughters from the said matrimony also came in the knowledge of the complainant from her application u/s 23 DV Act. Brother of alleged accused no. 1 namely Vicky had also married thrice without divorcing his first wife. It is also deposed by CW-1 that all the accused persons with the modus operandi of deceiving the complainant, hid the fact of earlier marriage of alleged accused no.1 and her two children from the said marriage. In this manner, the alleged accused persons are alleged to have committed offences u/s 384/385/389/403/406/420/500/506/120B/34 IPC.
6. CW-1 relied upon the following documents in support of his allegations:
(I) Ex. CW-1/1 : Original marriage invitation card. (II)Ex. CW-1/2 : Photographs of alleged accused no.1 with jewellery items given by the complainant and his family.
(III)Ex. CW-1/3 : Copy of Complaint dated 26.12.2020 filed by complainant at PS Anand Parbat.
(IV)Ex. CW-1/4 : Copy of CAW Cell complaint dated 11.02.2021 filed by accused Anjali.
(V) Ex. CW-1/5 : Copy of HMA Petition no. 1333/2020. (VI) Ex. CW-1/6 : Copy of report of Process Server dated 07.01.2021 showing service of summons on alleged accused no.1.
(vii) Ex. CW-1/7 : Copy of orders passed in Section 9 petition. (VIII) Ex. CW-1/8: Copy of complaint filed by the complainant CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.5/11 with PS Anand Parbat for extortion dated 25.02.2021. (IX) Ex. CW-1/9 : Copy of order dated 25.08.2022 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court).
(X) Ex. CW-1/10 : Copy of screenshot in which alleged accused no. 1 is wearing jewellery given by the complainant. (XI) Ex. CW-1/11: Copy of bank statement of alleged accused no.1.
(XII) Ex. CW-1/12: Copy of order dated 01.01.2022 passed by Ld. Magistrate taking cognizance of offence u/s 500 IPC. (XIII) Ex. CW-1/13: Copy of false and frivolous complaint dated 17.01.2022 passed by alleged accused no.1 and its reply. (XIV) Ex. CW-1/14: Copy of DV petition filed by alleged accused no.1.
(XV) Ex. CW-1/15: Copy of application u/s 23 DV Act filed by alleged accused no.1.
(XVI) Ex. CW-1/16: Copy of DIR filed in the DV Act petition of accused no.1.
(XVII) Ex. CW-1/17: Copy of reply filed by the complainant to the DV Act petition.
7. No other witness was examined by the complainant in support of his allegations.
IMPUGNED ORDER:
8. After hearing the arguments on the point of summoning and considering the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint case filed by the complainant u/s 203 CrPC vide impugned order dated 22.06.2023. Ld. Trial Court observed that the petition of the complainant as well as the examination of the complainant during PSE reflects that the allegations bears semblance of a matrimonial dispute which appears to be of civil nature. The CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.6/11 complainant has made general and vague allegations against the accused persons with respect to the offences alleged by him. In his PSE, the complainant had merely repeated the gist of his complaint, however, he has not been able to bring on record any evidence on the basis of which, it could have been said that the offences as alleged by the complainant appears to have been prima facie made out against the accused persons. Moreover, complainant has admitted that there are various matrimonial disputes pending before concerned courts between the parties. Ld. Trial Court was of the opinion that no offence as alleged appears to have been made out in the instant case and the allegations put forth by the complainant were primarily civil in nature. Accordingly, Ld. Trial Court held that there was no ground for summoning the alleged accused persons to be tried for any offence. Thus, the complaint case filed by the complainant was dismissed and summoning of the alleged accused persons was declined vide impugned order dated 22.06.2023.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONIST/COMPLAINANT/GROUNDS OF REVISION:
9. In the present revision petition, the impugned order dated 22.06.2023 is challenged on the same grounds on which the order dated 04.02.2022 dismissing the application u/s 156 (3) CrPC was challenged in CR No. 54/2022 (which is also listed for orders today). It is alleged that the impugned order has been passed by Ld. Trial Court on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and without appreciating the material facts and circumstances of the case and genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are clear allegations of commission of cognizable CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.7/11 offences of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust made in the complaint and accordingly it was the responsibility of the investigating authority to register the FIR and investigate the allegations. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court has ignored that the complaint discloses the cognizable offences of serious nature and erred in not summoning the accused persons for the offences committed by them u/s 182/384/385/389/403/406/420/500/506/120B and 34 IPC.
10. The complainant/revisionist who is a practising advocate has argued in line with the grounds of revision and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It is submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record for summoning all the accused persons, investigating agency is required for recovering the cash and articles taken from the house of the complainant. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and all accused persons be summoned for trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ALLEGED ACCUSED PERSONS/RESPONDENTS:
11. On behalf of the alleged accused persons/respondents herein, no written reply to the revision petition has been filed but the same has been vehementally argued. It is submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, there is no ground for recalling the said order. The impugned order is a reasonable, speaking and justified order and has been passed in right perspective manner. The entire complaint filed by the complainant is based on false and frivolous facts and is an attempt to save himself from the consequences his own conduct involving domestic violence practised by him upon alleged accused no.1. The only motive of complainant is to harass alleged accused no.1 because the CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.8/11 marriage between the parties did not work out on account of the conduct and behaviour of the complainat himself. No ground of revision point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.06.2023. In fact, there are no allegations against any of the alleged accused persons except accused Anjali either in the complaint or in the PSE led by complainant. It is the admitted case of the complainant that jewellery allegedly taken by the alleged accused no.1 was given to her in marriage. Thus, even if she had taken the same while leaving her matrimonial home, she cannot be punished or tried for the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. As regards the allegations of defamation, not even a single evidence is placed on record or even deposed by CW-1 regarding the alleged defamatory statement, if any made by any of the accused persons. Even otherwise, complainant himself is relying on Ex. CW-1/12 which is an order dated 01.01.2022 passed by Ld. MM taking cognizance of offence u/s 500 IPC and summoning alleged accused no.1 for the said offence. Thus, for the same offence, accused Anjali cannot be summoned again in this case.
12. It is rightly observed by Ld. Trial court that the evidence led by CW-1 is vague and general in nature and no ground is made out for summoning any of the accused persons for facing trial for any criminal offence. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.06.2023. Hence, it is submitted that there is no reason for interfering with the impugned order and dismissal of the revision petition is sought. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:
13. Ld. Additional PP for the State has also supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of the present revision petition.
CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.9/11FINDINGS:
14. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the Trial Court record.
15. It is held by the Apex Court in Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmender Bafna & Anr. Crl. No. 1283/2009 that a revisional court should not interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by Ld. Magistrate unless a jurisdictional error or an error of law is noticed.
16. Perusal of the impugned order shows that it is a detailed and reasoned order passed after considering the overall facts of the case, submissions made by the complainant as well as the ATR filed by the IO.
17. Considering the overall facts of the case and the impugned order, I am of the opinion that Ld. MM had passed a legal and reasonable order holding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding further against any of the accused persons. Perusal of PSE led by the complainant and documents relied upon by him clearly show that there are no specific allegations against alleged accused no. 2 to 7. As regards alleged accused no. 1, she is admittedly legally wedded wife of the complainant. As per his own submissions, pleadings and evidence led by complainant, alleged accused no. 1 had left the matrimonial home along with jewellery given to her in marriage which is part of her streedhan. Even if, the allegations made by the complainant are accepted as gospel truth, they do not give rise to any sufficient ground for trying her for commission of offence of criminal breach of trust. Moreover, merely due to non-consummation of marriage, it cannot be presumed that alleged accused no. 1 had any dishonest intention since beginning which is essential for invoking the offence of cheating against her. As regards the alleged demand of CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.10/11 Rs. 7.5 lacs for settlement for mutual divorce, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as commission of offence of extortion as a legally wedded wife has a legal right to claim maintenance and permanent alimony from her husband or a lump-sum amount in settlement thereof. Regarding the allegations of defamation, again, there is no evidence produced on record by the complainant. Moreover, a separate case u/s 500 IPC is already pending as per admissions of the complainant. Thus, there is no ground for summoning any of the alleged accused persons to be tried for any of the alleged offences or for any other offence whatsoever. No jurisdictional error or error of law is noticed in the impugned order dated 22.06.2023.
18. In view of the reason given above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.06.2023. Accordingly, the same is upheld and present revision petition stands dismissed.
19. No orders as to cost.
20. TCR be sent back with a copy of the order.
21. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of all legal formalities.
Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHARMASHIVALI Announced in open Court Date:
SHARMA 2024.04.03
16:01:12
Dated: 03.04.2024. +0530
(Shivali Sharma)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
03.04.2024.
CR No. 4152023 Kamal Singh Vs Anjali & Ors. PS Anand Parbat Page No.11/11