Delhi District Court
Rajesh Bajaj vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 28 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SAVITA RAO, SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI01,
(SOUTH) SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Crl. Revision No. : 457/17
CR Cases: 2039107/2016
FIR No. : 446/2013
P.S. : Saket
U/s : 498A/406/34 IPC
In the matter of :
1. Rajesh Bajaj
S/o Late Ramji Dass Bajaj
R/o 2284, Hudson Lane, New Delhi
2. Smt. Daisy Arora
W/o Sh. Praveen Arora
R/o 2658, Hudson Lane, New Delhi
3. Smt. Shreya Manocha
W/o Sh. Rajesh Manocha
R/o A91, Vishal Enclave
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
State (NCT of Delhi)
.......... Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.12.2017
Crl. Rev. No. : 457/17 1/6
Date of Arguments : 06.03.2018 & 28.03.2018
Date of Order : 28.03.2018
O R D E R
1. This is revision petition filed by petitioners aggrieved by the order of Ld. Trial court dated 1.11.2017 whereby charge u/s 498A/406 IPC was framed against petitioner no.1 /husband, besides framing of charge u/s 498A IPC against petitioners no. 2 & 3, who are sisters in law of complainant.
2. Prosecution case u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered on the allegations of complainant regarding mental and physical cruelty caused to her as well as dowry demands and non return of dowry articles of complainant despite demand.
3. It was submitted by counsel for petitioner that the alleged complaint was lodged after almost 28 years of marriage and the falsity of complaint is apparent from the fact that the complainant has leveled allegations even against her two sons, which is highly improbable. As submitted, there is no allegation of entrustment of dowry articles to petitioner no.1 in the whole complainant/FIR or that petitioner no.1/husband had any dominion over such articles or that he dishonestly misappropriated or converted the said articles to his own use. As submitted, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners between the period 2006 to 2012 and even for the period prior thereto, the allegations are intermittent, vague, generic and without particulars . Against petitioners no. 2 & 3, most of the allegations are of instigating petitioner no.1/husband and there are no direct allegations which can bring the case within the four corners of section 498 A IPC against petitioners no. 2 & 3. As further submitted, it is highly improbable Crl. Rev. No. : 457/17 2/6 to assume that married sisters in law living in their own matrimonial homes would come simultaneously to the matrimonial home of complainant and would subject her to demand of dowry and consequent cruelty, besides the fact that the allegations levelled in the charge sheet are vague, unbelievable and not worthy of credence.
4. Ld. Counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon CRM (M) no. 1739 of 2000 titled as Basant Kaur Vs. State wherein it was observed that "complaint made after 25 years of marriage for cruelty and harassment against husband and in laws including sister in law for incidents that occurred two decades ago cannot be made a ground for punishing the accused after 25 years that too in a matrimonial dispute since the same is neither the object nor intention of legislature and is a misuse of provision".
5. Perusal of record reveals specific allegations regarding causing of mental cruelty and abusive behaviour by the husband /petitioner no.1. The marriage between petitioner no.1 and complainant though is spanning 28 years, therefore imputation regarding dowry demands and the consistent demands of money may or may not have travelled so long but as far as other allegations with regard to cruelty and harassment as well as physical and mental abuse against the husband are concerned, long span of marriage itself cannot be the reason to absolve the accused if otherwise the allegations are made out against him. As per the Indian scenario, there is nothing unusual for a woman to keep bearing/tolerating cruel behaviour and torture in the hands of her husband or inlaws due to her social conditioning and with expectation that her life may improve upon some day. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen and the complainant deserves the Crl. Rev. No. : 457/17 3/6 opportunity to prove her case during trial.
6. The contention of Ld. Counsel for petitioner is not tenable that there is no eye witness to the mental harassment or cruelty caused to the complainant which itself is suggestive of no mental cruelty or harassment having been committed upon the complainant. It may be noted that cruelty generally is caused in the four corners of the house and is not necessarily to be witnessed by eye witnesses except for complainant herself.
7. The other contention that behaviour of complainant herself was uncooperative and suspicious and she is also suffering from depression which is the reason behind her rude and suspicious attitude towards her husband, resulting into filing of the present complaint, is the defence to be taken by the petitioners during trial.
8. With regard to non return of istridhan articles of complainant, the complainant was married to accused/petitioner no.1 and as has already been held in catena of judgments that as soon as a woman reaches to her matrimonial home after the marriage, the husband or parents in law have their dominion over the property/dowry brought by the woman to the matrimonial home. In terms of allegations, complainant was dropped at house of her parents in the wearing clothes, thereby the dominion and possession of petitioner/husband continued upon the istridhan articles of complainant. At this stage, considering the contents of the complaint and the material available on record which prima facie disclose commission of alleged offence against the petitioner no.1/husband, prima facie case u/s 498A/406 IPC is made out against him .
Crl. Rev. No. : 457/17 4/69. As far as petitioners no. 2 & 3 are concerned, not only the allegations against them are general but also are pertaining to the period much prior to the date of complaint. Besides that , petitioners no. 2 & 3 are married sistersinlaw of complainant and are residing at their respective matrimonial homes. Reliance is placed upon Crl. Rev. No. 267/2008 titled as Chander Kanta Lamba Vs. State wherein it was observed that " whenever matrimonial relations turn sour, there can be said to be a tendency on the part of complainant whether it is done by her of her own free will or at the instigation of her parents, brothers, sisters or even legal advice, to make all kinds of wild and reckless allegations against entire family of husband. Further, framing of charge against married sisters of husband was held to be not proper as sisters got married much prior to marriage of complainant and were residing in their own matrimonial homes. It was further observed that in a case of this nature, the court has to be very sensitive and it should not get swayed by emotions which the complainant may be suffering from with a view to put persons or relatives who are unconnected with the incident to the facing of the trial in itself , in present times is a great deal of punishment especially in the light of the fact that same continues endlessly for years together on account of heavy load on the courts".
10. Prima facie case is not made out petitioners no. 2 & 3 . Accordingly, impugned order qua petitioners no.2 & 3 whereby charge u/s 498A IPC was framed against them is set aside, whereas qua petitioner no.1/husband, no infirmity or illegality is found in the impugned order, which is accordingly upheld qua petitioner no.1. Revision petition is disposed off in above terms.
Crl. Rev. No. : 457/17 5/6TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the trial court. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (Savita Rao)
Today on 28.03.2018 Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI01(South)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. : 457/17 6/6