Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay on 16 August, 2024
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 182/2022
State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
through Public Prosecutor,
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. ............... Revisionist
Versus
1. Sanjay
s/o Surender Nath
r/o Jhuggi No.1, AGCR Enclave,
near Laxmi Public School, Delhi.
2. Seema
d/o Surender Nath
r/o Jhuggi No.1, AGCR Enclave,
near Laxmi Public School, Delhi.
...............Respondents.
ORDER
1. This revision petition is preferred u/s 397 r/w 399 and 400 Cr. PC against the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court-02), Shahdara, KKD Courts, whereby the accused persons/respondents were discharged in FIR No. 631/2015 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC P.S. Anand Vihar.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 09.09.2015, present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint of complainant Pooja. The gist of the said complaint is that VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR 17:07:45 +0530 Date: 2024.08.16 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 1/11 2 marriage of complainant and accused Sunny was solemnized on 26.04.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies; that complainant's parents have spent around Rs.7-8 lacs in the marriage; that on the demand of complainant's husband, Passion Pro motorcycle was given qua dowry in addition to the other dowry articles; that inlaws of complainant were not satisfied with the dowry articles; that after some days of the marriage, behaviour of complainant's inlaws was good, however, thereafter, father-in-law of complainant said complainant that her parents have not given dowry as per their expectations; that after some days, inlaws of complainant started beating and harassing the complainant; that accused Sunny (husband) often came home in drunken condition and upon the instigation of his parents and siblings, he used to beat the complainant; that complainant was not allowed to talk with her parents on phone; that brother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant also used to taunt the complainant by saying इतना दहेज तो आज कल भिखारी भी दे देते हैं , तेरे घर वालों की हमारे सामने क्या औकात है; that in the year 2013, complainant had seen some messages as well as objectionable photographs in the mobile phone of her husband, sent by him to some other girl and when complainant asked her husband about the same, he started beating the complainant in the company of his mother, sister and brother; that thereafter they thrown out the complainant from her matrimonial house in the year 2013; that after some VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:08:23 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 2/11 3 time complainant has filed complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence against Women Act in the court and upon summoning, husband and inlaws of complainant appeared before the court, however, during that period, complainant's husband absconded along with another girl and also solemnized marriage with her; that in this regard parents of said girl have registered an FIR No. 111/2015 P.S. Anand Vihar; that upon asking for several times, inlaws of complainant have not returned the istridhan to her; that after registration of FIR, notice u/s 41.1 Cr. PC was given to accused persons to join the investigation, upon which parents in law of complainant have joined the investigation, however accused Sunny (husband) has not joined the same even after issuance of NBW; that thereafter after completion of proceedings u/s 82 Cr. PC against him, he was declared P.O. vide order dated 26.05.2017; that after completion of investigation charge-sheet under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was filed before the court 'without arrest' against accused Surender Nath, Chandra Wati, Sanjay and Seema.
3. Upon hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court has ordered for framing charge under Section 498A/406 IPC against accused persons Surender and Chandrawati and discharged the accused persons/respondents Sanjay and Seema/respondents for the said offences vide impugned order.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:08:31 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 3/11 4
4. The present revision impugns the order on following grounds:
• that impugned order is illegal and perverse and liable to be set aside because Ld. Trial court has committed illegality by discharging the accused persons in the present саse.
• that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate the well settled proposition that at the time of framing of charge it is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the alleged accused persons on the basis of complaint and the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC collected by IO.
• that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the well settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing charge, it is not obligatory to consider in detail and to weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved would be incompatible with the innocence of accused of not. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Strong suspicion at the initial stage of framing of charge is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused persons.
• that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that specific and categorical allegation are mentioned against the accused persons in para no. 6 in complaint before the CAW Cell in which complainant stated that her sister-in-law Seema VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:08:39 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 4/11 5 had started taunting her "sara saman ghatiya quality ka hai, iske maa baap ne toh hume bhut saste me loot liya, and brother-n-law Sanjay also taunted her "itna dahej toh aaj kal bhikari bhi de dete hai, tere ghar walo ki hamare samane kya aukat hai" in the name of dowry. • that Ld.MM failed to appreciate that specific and categorical allegations are mentioned against the accused persons in para No. 7 that in year 2013 on the occasion of navratri brother in law Sanjay misbehaved and abused her "main tujhe aur tere ghar walo ko dekh lunga, tujhe is ghar me nhi rahne dunga" and beat her and threw her from the house.
• that Ld. MM failed to appreciate that specific and categorical allegations are mentioned against the accused in para no. 13 that complainant's in laws were harassing her for dowry demand and threatened to kill her and all her istridhan i.e. Gold and Silver ornaments, cloths, furniture and motorcycle etc is in custody and control of her in-laws and despite demanding the same, they did not return it to her.
5. I have heard arguments on behalf of both sides and perused the entire material on record.
6. Learned Prosecutor has argued that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the respondents under Section 498A/406/34 IPC as it was specifically alleged against them that since marriage, the complainant was harassed or tortured by the accused persons on account VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR 17:08:47 +0530 Date: 2024.08.16 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 5/11 6 of demand of dowry and despite demand, they have not returned the dowry articles to the complainant. It was further argued that at the time of framing the charge, the Court is not required to go into the probative value of the material on record and the Court is only required to form prima facie opinion regarding the commission of offence.
7. Before proceeding to adjudicate the present revision, it is profitable to refer to the relevant provision from which this court derives its power of revision and the same is reproduced as under:
Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
Section 399 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
399. Sessions Judge' s powers of revision.
Digitally signed by VINEETVINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:08:57 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 6/11 7 (1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub- section (1) of section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub- section (1), the provisions of sub- sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub- sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.
(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of a person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by Way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court."
8. The short question involved in the present revision is whether the impugned order suffers from any irregularity or impropriety.
9. At the outset, it is expedient to refer to the case of Taron Mohan Vs. State and anr. 2021 SCC Online Del. 312, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR 17:09:06 +0530
Date: 2024.08.16
Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 7/11
8
10. Before adverting to the case in hand, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. bearing Crl. Appeal No. 1674/2012, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"......27. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant- respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed."
11. In addition to the above, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. Crl. Appeal No. 195/2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) 6545/2020) has relied upon K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Court that:
"Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:09:14 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 8/11 9 crime are made out."
12. It was further held in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) that:
"this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law."
13. Now adverting to the case in hand in the light of aforestated law, perusal of the contents of complaint given to ACP, CAW Cell, Patparganj, on the basis of which FIR was registered, clearly reveals that primarily the allegations of subjecting the complainant to harassment/cruelty for the purpose of unlawful demand of dowry are upon the husband/ in-laws and there is no whisper of demand of any dowry articles by the respondents herein in the entire complaint. Also, there are no specific allegations against the respondents of any article of dowry being entrusted to them and the same having not been returned after specific demand in this regard by the complainant. Although, there are VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:09:23 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 9/11 10 general allegations against respondents regarding the inferior quality and quantity of articles given in the marriage, but there are no corresponding allegations of complainant having been subjected to any cruelty or harassment either in this regard or with regard to any further demand. Moreover, there are no specific dates of any incident against the respondents in the entire complaint when complainant was subjected to any cruelty or any demand was made by the complainant from the respondents for return of any dowry articles, which may have been entrusted to them.
14. Pertinently, the offence under Section 498A IPC is attracted only where the husband or any relative of the husband had subjected a woman to cruelty in relation to demand of dowry, whereas, as far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, the same is made out only when istridhan/dowry articles entrusted with either the husband or his relatives, are not returned upon specific demand being made in this regard. However, in the present matter, in the light of above discussion, it cannot be said that a case under Section 498A or Section 406 IPC is made out against the respondents.
15. It is a settled law that at the time of framing the charge, the Court is required to examine as to whether there exists strong suspicion against the accused persons of having committed the offence or not, but in the case in hand, this proposition of law is not applicable for the reasons that there is no material as such on record to give rise to strong suspicion against the accused persons/respondents so as to VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:09:30 +0530 Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 10/11 11 warrant framing of charge against them for the offences punishable either under Section 498A or Section 406 IPC.
16. Therefore, in the light of above discussion as well as considering the facts and circumstances in totality, suffice it to state that the Ld. trial court while passing the impugned order, whereby respondents Sanjay and Seema were discharged, has not committed any error and the same neither suffers from any illegality or impropriety nor requires any interference by this Court.
17. Consequently, the present revision stands dismissed.
Revision file be consigned to record room. Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.08.16 17:09:38
+0530
Announced in the open (Vineet Kumar)
Court on 16.08.2024. ASJ-02/E-COURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi.
Cr. Rev. No. 182/2022 State Vs. Sanjay and anr. Page No. 11/11