Delhi District Court
Charanjeet Singh vs The State on 2 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ05 : WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR Old No. 06/15 & New No. 14/16.
ID No. 02401R0059562015
IN THE MATTER OF:
Charanjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Amrik Singh,
At F168A, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
............ Petitioner.
VERSUS
The State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi.
.............Respondent.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.02.2015.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.03.2016.
DATE OF DECISION : 02.04.2016.
AND
CR Old No. 07/15 & New No. 15/16.
ID No. 02401R0059582015
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sh. Amrik Singh
S/o Gurmukh Singh Kohli
2. Ms. Jasbir Kaur,
W/o Sh. Amrik Singh,
Both r/o 23, Dudyal Apartment,
Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura, Delhi.
............ Petitioners.
VERSUS
The State,
CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 1 of 10
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi.
.............Respondent.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.02.2015.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.03.2016.
DATE OF DECISION : 02.04.2016.
AND
CR Old No. 08/15 & New No. 16/16.
ID No. 02401R0059552015
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sh. Tajinder Singh Kohli
S/o Sh. Amrik Singh
2. Ms. Harvinder Kaur
W/o Sh. Tajinder Singh Kohli
Both r/o 23, Dudyal Apartment,
Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura, Delhi.
............ Petitioners.
VERSUS
The State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi.
.............Respondent.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.02.2015.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.03.2016.
DATE OF DECISION : 02.04.2016.
JUDGMENT.
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the revision petition Old No. 07/15 & New No. 15/16 filed by petitioners Amrik Singh & Ms. Jasbir Kaur, who are fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of the complainant.
Vide this common judgment, I shall also decide the revision petition Old CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 2 of 10 No. 06/15 & New No. 14/16 filed by petitioner Charanjeet Singh, who is husband of the complainant. Vide this common judgment, I shall also decide the revision petition Old No. 8/15 & New No. 16/16 filed by petitioners Tajinder Singh Kohli & Ms. Harvinder Kaur, who are brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw i.e. Jeth & Jethani of the complainant. All the revision petitions are being decided together as all the petitioner have challenged the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the ld. MM. Vide which the ld. MM has held that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge for the offence u/s. 498A/34 IPC against all the petitioners. Ld. MM has also held that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge for the offence u/s. 406/34 IPC against petitioners Charanjeet Singh, Amrik Singh and Jasbir Kaur. Ld. MM has also held that there is sufficient material to frame charge for the offence u/s. 420 IPC against petitioner Charanjeet Singh.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2014, the petitioners Amrik Singh & Jasbir Kaur has filed the revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is based upon conjectures and surmises. No case is made out against them. Ld. Trial Court has not taken into consideration that there is no material on record to show that the petitioners had ever demanded or made demand of dowry or harassed the complainant. The allegations are general in nature and the complainant failed to mention the specific incident, date whereby the petitioner's have committed any act which may constitute any offence u/s. 498A/406 IPC. The complainant herself executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the presence of her father, sister, brotherinlaw, her advocate and other respectable persons of the society. The CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 3 of 10 complainant also admitted that all the jewellery articles have been returned to her and nothing remains due. The petitioners Amrik Singh & Jasbir Kaur prayed that charge against them be set aside.
The petitioners Tajinder Singh Kohli & Ms. Harvinder Kaur has filed the revision petition on the similar grounds and prayed that charge ordered to be framed against them vide order 16.10.2014 be set aside.
Petitioner Charanjeet Singh has also prayed that charge ordered to be framed against him vide order 16.10.2014 be set aside and he be discharged.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Chief, Ld. Chief PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the complainant at length and perused the record of this court as well as Trial Court carefully.
4. Perusal of the file reveals that the complainant has filed an application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C and Ld. MM vide order dated 15.04.2009 ordered to register FIR. Thereafter, FIR was registered.
It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that in the complaint u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C, there is no specific allegations of dowry demand. There is no allegation of entrustment of dowry articles and there is no specific allegation of cheating against accused/ petitioner Charanjeet Singh. It is also contended that after filing of application, the complainant again gave complaint dated 12.05.2009 to the SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh.
CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 4 of 10
5. Perusal of the file reveals that complainant Japjeet Kaur filed an application u/s. 153(3) Cr.P.C before the court of Ld. ACMM. Prior to the filing of the application before the Court, the complainant had given application dated 19.03.2009 to the SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh and thereafter, another application dated 12.05.2009 was given to SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh.
I have perused the application dated 19.03.2009 given to the SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh. In the application dated 19.03.2009, it is mentioned that she was residing with her husband, parents in law and Jeth & Jethani till 10.11.2008 at 23, Dudial Apartments, Pitampura Chowk, New Delhi . The behaviour and treatment of her in laws and husband towards her was very bad and they tortured her, illtreated her and made demands for more dowry. On many occasions, she was beaten and thrown out of the house. It is also mentioned that these persons always got back to their old ways of torturing and beating her. Lastly on 15.10.2008 another incident took place in which she was brutaly beaten, left with no option she again informed the society persons. In the application, it is also mentioned that her husband had taken her jewellery, cash amounting to Rs. 56 lakhs, Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs. 2 lakhs out of the locker and stolen the same. This complaint dated 19.03.2009 was made by the complainant in respect of the jewellery and cash amount of Rs. 56 lakhs and thereafter, she filed the application before the Court of ACMM on the basis of which FIR was registered.
6. During investigation, complainant has given another application dated 12.05.2009 in which she has leveled specific allegation of harassment, dowry CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 5 of 10 demand and torture at the hands of the accused persons. There is also allegation of specific dowry demand and the fulfilling of dowry demand by the father of the complainant. She also mentioned that accused persons started demanding a flat from her father. She also leveled allegation that on 22.12.2006 she was beaten by her her husband, mother in law, fatherinlaw, Jeth & Jethani.
7. During investigation statement of complainant was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C and supplementary statements of the complainant was recorded on 22.04.2009, 13.05.2009, 19.05.2009 & 21.05.2009. The statement dated 22.04.2009 shows that accused persons admitted their guilt in the Biradri/ Panchayat and her husband has returned gold articles to her but she came to know lateron that her maximum jewelery was not given and she stated that her remaining jewelery and Rs. 45 lacs be delivered to her. Vide supplementary statement dated 13.05.2009 the complainant prayed that action be initiated against the accused persons as they used to torture her. In the supplementary statement dated 19.05.2009 complainant has stated that she had executed MOU on 22.04.2009 under the pressure and she was made to understand that if she had to take back the jewellery from the accused persons then she had to sign the agreement. She also stated that Rs. 5 lakhs, Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs. 2 lakhs, one Santro car, one Ascent car and remaining jewellery articles belonging to her are still in the possession of her husband and her in laws.
8. Perusal of the Trial Court Record reveals that there is copy of complaint dated 22.12.2006 in the chargesheet. In this complaint she has mentioned that her CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 6 of 10 fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, Jeth & Jethani used to instigate her husband and they used to raise demand upon her and she also leveled allegation that they had demanded flat from her father. She has also mentioned that brother of her motherinlaw and maternal aunt of her husband used to come at her matrimonial and they used to instigate her motherinlaw. She has also mentioned that her husband Charanjeet Singh has given beatings to her and her mother in law Jasbir Kaur also raised hands on her. It is also mentioned that her sister in law used to instigate her husband and her husband used to give beatings to her. She also mentioned that when her parents had gone to London, she was mercilessly beaten by the petitioner and they had also threatened to kill her. This application was given on 22.12.2006 and FIR in the present case ordered to be registered on 15.04.2009. Thus, prior to the filing application dated 19.03.2009 and application before the court of Ld. ACMM the complainant has already given application to the police. During arguments, it is not denied that brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw i.e. Jeth & Jethani were not residing along with complainant at Dudyal Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi.
9. It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsels for the petitioners that MOU was executed between the complainant and her husband i.e. Charanjeet Singh and that MOU was witnessed by S. Mohinder Singh & Taranjeet Singh. It is brought to my notice by ld. Counsel for the petitioners that statement of S. Mohinder Singh was recorded during investigation. He has also stated that compromise was arrived between the complainant and her husband. Similar statement of Taranjeet Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh was recorded.
CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 7 of 10
It is not denied by the complainant that MOU was not executed. The complainant gave supplementary statements to the police and the supplementary statement dated 19.05.2009 shows that complainant has mentioned that she has signed the MOU under pressure and under coercion. It is matter of trial whether the complainant has signed the MOU under pressure or not. Even in this MOU, it is mentioned that it has been alleged by Japjeet Kaur that her jewellery items worth Rs. 95 lacs has been taken fraudulently taken by the accused Charanjeet Singh from his wife and now he has handed over the maximum jewelery items which has been recovered at the instance of Charanjeet Singh and some of the items are missing i.e. Kisan & Sahara Vikas Patra worth Rs. 2 lakhs and cash of Rs. 5 lakhs for which accused Charanjeet Singh undertake that he will hand over the same at the time of full and final settlement.
10. I am of the view that there are specific allegations and there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the accused persons and Ld. MM has rightly framed charge u/s. 498A/34 IPC against all the petitioners, u/s. 406/34 against husband Charanjeet Singh, fatherinlaw Amrik Singh and motherinlaw Jasbir Kaur and rightly framed charge for the offence u/s. 420 IPC against accused Charanjeet Singh.
Moreover, no cogent or convincing reason is disclosed entitling discharge of the accused persons. Further, at this stage of framing of Charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The Apex Court in a number of cases had held that CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 8 of 10 at the stage of framing the charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by the court is not required; nor the adequacy of the evidence can be seen at this stage as it would amount to premature appreciation of evidence. The same view has been held by their Lordship in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl.L.J.746 and Omwati Vs. State through Delhi Admn,. 2001 (2) Crimes 59.
11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also contended that on 18.03.2009 when the husband Charanjeet Singh had taken all the jewellery articles, he had sent two emails to the commissioner of police and it shows that he had taken all the jewellery but I am not inclined to discuss these emails as copies of these emails are not collected by the IO during investigation.
12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on judgments 138 (2007) Delhi Law Times 152 titled as "Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.", 169 (2010) Delhi Law Times 143 titled as "Chander Kanta Lamba & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.", 2007 (96) DRJ 9 titled as "Sunil Bansal Vs. State of Delhi". I have perused these judgments with utmost regard. These judgments are not helpful to the petitioners as there are specific allegations of harassment and dowry demand against the petitioners.
13. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the Ld. MM. The revision petitions filed by the petitioners are without any merits and same is hereby CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 9 of 10 dismissed.
Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance. Announced in the Open Court (Naresh Kumar Malhotra) on 02.04.2016. ASJ05 (W)/THC/Delhi CR Nos. 14/16, 15/16 & 16/16. Page No. 10 of 10