Delhi District Court
State vs Amit on 20 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 194/2023
State Vs. Amit & Ors.
CNR NO. DLWT01-002917/2023
In the matter of :
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor
....Revisionist
Versus
1. Amit
S/o Lt. Raj Kumar
R/o L-1/27, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Mikki Mehra
S/o Lt. Raj Kumar
R/o L-1/27, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Smt. Pushpa Devi
W/o Lt. Raj Kumar
R/o L-1/27, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Bhupender Singh
S/o Joginder Singh
R/o R-Extension, House No. 3,
Vikas Vihar, Near Manas Kunj,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 1 of 12
State Vs. Amit & Ors.
5. Smt. Poonam
W/o Sh. Bhupender Singh
R/o R-Extension, House No. 3,
Vikas Vihar, Near Manas Kunj,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.04.2023
Date of reserving order : 20.03.2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.03.2025
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the State under Section 397/399 of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') against the order dated 17.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. Trial Court') in case case FIR No. 553/2015, PS-Tilak Nagar, titled as State Vs. Amit etc., whereby accused persons/respondents herein were discharged for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC Arguments addressed by State/revisionist
2. Assailing the impugned order, Ld. Prosecutor submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that there are specific allegations of cruelty and harassing in connection to dowry demand by the accused persons/respondents; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that all the Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 2 of 12 State Vs. Amit & Ors.
ingredients of Section 498A IPC exists against all the accused person; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that mental cruelty falls within the purview of Section 498A IPC as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Gurnaib Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2013) 7 SCC ; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record, hence, the present revision has been filed.
Arguments addressed on behalf of Respondents :
3. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents supporting the Impugned Order argued that there is no infirmity and illegality done by the Ld. Trial Court and has rightly passed the order on charge and discharged the respondents for the offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, hence, no interference of this Court is required. It has been lastly submitted that matter has already been settled between the parties before Family Court being matrimonial dispute.
Analysis and relevant law :
4. The Court heard the arguments as advanced by Ld. Prosecutor as well as Ld. Counsel for respondents and have gone through the material available on record including the Trial Court Record.
5. Section 250 and 251 of BNSS (Earlier Section 227 and 228 Cr.PC) empowers a Judge to frame charge or discharge accused for the offence. Before proceedings further, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce both sections, which reads as under:
Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 3 of 12State Vs. Amit & Ors.
"250 of BNSS - Discharge.
(2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
251 of BNSS - Framing of charge.
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
((b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge.
Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 4 of 122.Where the Judge frames any charge under clause
(b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused present either physically or through audio-video electronic means and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried."
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, has laid down the principles on the scope of Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., which read as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 5 of 12 State Vs. Amit & Ors.
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 6 of 12(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
7. Hon'ble Apex Court Asim Shariff Vs. National Investigation Agency reported in (2019) 7 SCC 148, has observed as under:
"18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases(which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 7 of 12 State Vs. Amit & Ors.
is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record."
8. On the aspect of standard of proof at the stage of charge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam reported in (2020) 2 SCC 217, has observed as under:
13. ...At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen
9. Reverting to the present matter, the main thrust of argument advanced by Ld. Prosecutor is that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the entire facts of the case and material available on record and wrongly discharged the respondents/accused persons.
10. After analyzing the material available on record, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order while discharging the respondents/accused persons has observed as under:
" The complainant has not mentioned any other specific incident in her entire complaint regarding any demand made by her sister in law and her husband. In matrimonial disputes it remains the tendency of wives to implicate even the distant relatives of the husband in Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 8 of 12 State Vs. Amit & Ors.
dowry demand cases. It seems unlikely that suddenly one day all accused will throw her out of matrimonial home. The complainant has not made any specific allegation of beating and any quarrel taking place on the given day. The complainant did not make any complaint regarding the same immediately or any complaint regarding any untoward incident during the six years of marriage against any of the accused. In these circumstances, the allegations made by the complainant against the accused persons seem groundless and therefore, this court is of opinion that no prima facie case is made out against any of the accused u/s 498A IPC.
During investigation a list of Stridhan articles along-with other articles given to the in laws by the complainant during marriage was provided by the complainant to IO. The husband of complainant has returned the household articles to his wife/complainant during investigation. The list of such articles as returned to complainant is part of record. Other Gold and silver articles was returned by the husband of complainant during bail proceedings as recorded in the order of court dated 08.06.2017. Further, in her complaint no allegation has been made by complainant against any of the accused regarding entrustment of Stridhan and its refusal on demand. Hence, no offence pertaining to 406 IPC is made out against any of the accused persons.
On the basis of discussion made above this court is of prima facie opinion that no offence under Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 9 of 12 State Vs. Amit & Ors.
section 498A/406/34 is made out against any of the accused. Accordingly, all accused persons stand discharged from the case."
11. However, on perusal of Trial Court record, it has surfaced that in the complaint itself it has been alleged by the complainant that since beginning her sister-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing her for want of sufficient dowry. Even her husband used to taunt her for want of sufficient dowry and demanded money from her father repeatedly. Her father under pressure paid money to the accused persons many times but still they continued to harass and torture the complainant. The complainant suffered the atrocities committed upon her considering the poor financial condition of her father. All the accused persons demanded Rs.60,000/- from her father for buying a new motorcycle for her husband/accused Amit. On 05.05.2014, all the accused persons committed atrocity upon her and while stating that till the time she is thrown out of the matrimonial home she will not accede to their demand of new motorcycle, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in the night at about 10:30 p.m. in wearing apparels. Finding no other option, she returned to her parental home in TSR during that night only.
12. Considering the aforesaid allegations leveled by the complainant which finds mentioned in the chargesheet itself, it cannot be said as observed by Ld. Trial Court, that there are no specific allegations against the accused persons when specific amount demanded and specific date has been mentioned by the complainant.
Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 10 of 1213. It is well settled law as discussed in the preceding paragraphs that at the time of framing of charge a prima facie case is to be seen and no mini enquiry or trial can be conducted at that stage to question the authenticity or to check veracity of the allegations leveled by the complainant. Moreso, when the allegations leveled by the complainant are also alleged by other witnesses in their statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. PC.
14. It is also well settled law that each and every detail cannot be given in the complaint made to the police for registration of FIR and the complainant/victim shall be given opportunity for giving precise details of the offence during their deposition in the trial, if prima facie allegations are there.
15. However, as per record, no specific entrustment of stridhan articles and their consequential refusal to return has been alleged by the complainant against any of the accused persons/respondents. Therefore, no prima facie case under Section 406 IPC is made out against the respondents/accused persons.
16. Keeping in view the allegations leveled by the complainant, veracity to which shall be tested during the trial as well as applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex to the present case, this Court finds that Ld. Trial Court erred in concluding that no prima facie case under Section 498A/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons/respondents. Accordingly, the present revision petition is partly allowed. The present matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court to frame charge against the accused persons under Section 498A/34 IPC and conclude the trial as per law.
Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 11 of 1217. The trial Court record along with the copy of this order be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
18. The file of this revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date:
2025.03.20 Pronounced in the open 16:16:04 +0530 Court on 20.03.2025 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi It is certified that this Order contains 12 pages and each page bears my signatures. SHEFALI by Digitally signed SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date: 2025.03.20 16:16:07 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Criminal Revision No. 194/2023 Page 12 of 12 State Vs. Amit & Ors.