Delhi District Court
Deepak Verma And Ors vs State on 4 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04,
NORTH-DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-012207-2022
CR Revision No. 296/2022
1. SH. DEEPAK VERMA
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh
2. SH. SATBIR SINGH
S/o Sh. Hansraj Verma
3. SMT. SASHI DEVI
W/o Sh. Satbir Singh
4. SH. SANJAY VERMA
S/o Satbir Singh
All Residents of : B-107, Indra Park, Nangli Sakrawati,
Najafgarh, New Delhi
5. SH. JAGDISH VERMA
S/o Sh. Hansraj Verma
R/o 22-A, Subhash Park, Extension Hastal, Delhi.
6. SH. MANGE RAM
S/o Sh. Tika Ram
R/o 534/28, Gopal Nagar,
Sonepat, Haryana.
7. SMT. CHAMELI DEVI
W/o Sh. Mange Ram,
R/o 534/28, Gopal Nagar,
Sonepat, Haryana.
Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State
CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 1 of 10
8. SH. SISAN
S/o Kham Chandigarh
R/o Village Maandi Tehsil,
Sibalakha Panipat, Haryana.
9. SMT. NEELAM
W/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o: 1/5, Apho Building,
Mahipalpur, Delhi .....Revisionists
VS.
THE STATE
Govt of NCT of Delhi .....Respondent
Date of institution of revision : 23.12.2022
Date on which arguments heard : 25.09.2023
Date on which judgment pronounced : 04.11.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition filed by the revisionist under section 397 Cr.P.C., for setting-aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) passed by the Court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court)-01, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in Cr. Case. No. 6715/2017, FIR No.1134/14 PS Bawana, titled as 'State Vs. Deepak Verma' whereby the charge for the offences punishable U/s 498A/354/406/34 IPC were framed against the revisionists.
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revisionist has moved the present appeal on the following grounds :
Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 2 of 10
(i) That the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 passed by Ld. Trial Court is against the settled law and against the principle of natural justice because the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the facts of the case, judgments or various Hon'ble High Courts and arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the order dated 06.12.2022 is liable to be set-aside only on this sole ground.
(ii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that there is neither any specific allegations on specific person, nor any allegation for entrustment of any property / articles as all allegations are vague, general in nature and after thought with intention to harass the revisionists and implicated them in the present case to extort money under the garb of the aforesaid case.
(iii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant has filed false complaints only with the intention to implicate the revisionists in the present false case and to seek partition in the property and to extort money from them.
(iv) That the Ld. Trial Court has also failed to consider that the complainant has made false and vague allegations in her complaint against husband and every family member of the husband.
Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 3 of 10
(v) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability for the purpose of section 498-A IPC. That the Ld. Trial Court has further failed to appreciate the fact that there is no material on record in the entire charge-sheet filed by the prosecution to justify the order of framing of charge under section 498-A IPC against the present revisionists.
(vi) That all the allegations made in the complaint / FIR are patently false, vague and after thought as can be seen even at simple perusal of the FIR itself and there is not even a single allegation, which constitute the offence under section 498- A/406/34 IPC.
(vii) That the Ld. Trial Court totally misread and misconceived the material on record in the present case and passed the impugned order, therefore, the same is liable to set-aside.
(viii) That the impugned order is liable to be set-aside because the same is based on the presumptions and assumptions not relevant to the facts of the case and also the impugned order is bases on surmises and conjectures, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 4 of 10
(ix) That if the revision of the revisionists is not allowed, it would cause a grave injustice to the revisionists and the same will be against the principle of nature justice as well as of the fact that if the present revision petition is allowed, it would meet meet ends of justice.
3. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for revisionistgs that the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 is illegal on perverse and bad in law and the same is liable to be set-aside and quashed as even if the material on record is microscopically examined, the offence under section 498A/354/406/34 IPC cannot be made out against the revisionists. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for Revisionists that there is no mention of any incident or ingredient which could amount to offence punishable under Section 498A/354/406/34 IPC against revisionists / accused persons and not a single word was whispered about any of the incident to fulfill the criteria of Section 498A/354/406/34 IPC. It is prayed that revision petition filed by revisionists may kindly be allowed and revisionist / accused persons may kindly be discharged from the charge for the offence punishable U/s 498A/354/406/34 IPC.
4. On the other hand, Ld. APP for State has opposed the contentions made by Ld. Counsel for revisionists / accused persons and submits that there is enough material available on record, which enables the Court to frame charge for the offences alleged against Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 5 of 10 revisionists/accused persons. Ld. APP for State has vehemently opposed the present revision petition and prayed that the present revision petition may kindly be dismissed. He has further argued that revision petition is not maintainable as charge has been framed as specific allegations have leveled against accused persons which are sufficient to frame the charge for the offences alleged against them. He has further argued that charge has to be framed only on the basis of material available on record and that the documents of the accused persons could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge.
5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of ld. Counsel for the revisionists/accused persons as well as Ld. APP for State / Respondent. This Court has also perused the record.
6. In the present case, Trial Court Record has been summoned and the same has been carefully perused. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of the hand written complaint of the Complainant dated 04.06.2014 wherein the complainant has leveled specific allegations against revisionists / accused persons. It is an admitted fact that marriage between complainant and revisionist / accused Deepak Verma was solemnized on 08.12.2012 and that she resided with revisionists / accused persons namely Deepak Verma (Husband of complainant), Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 6 of 10 Sanjay Verma (brother-in-law of complainant), Satbir Verma (father-in-law of complainant) and Shashi Verma (mother-in-law of complainant) since the date of her marriage i.e., on 08.12.2012 of the complainant and up till her stay at her matrimonial house. Further, specific allegations have been leveled against all the nine revisionists including the other relatives i.e., Jagdish Verma, Mange Ram, Chameli Devi, Sisan and Neelam in the complaint given by complainant. There are allegations against all the revisionists / accused persons that they in furtherance of their common intention, subjected the complainant with physical and mental cruelty for want of dowry. There is specific allegations against revisionist / accused namely Sanjay that he committed assault and used criminal force upon the complaint with an intention to outrage her modesty. There are specific allegations against revisionists / accused persons namely Deepak, Satbir, Sashi and Sanjay that they were having dominion upon or were interested in the istridhan / dowry articles of complainant which they misappropriated and that they did not return the same despite specific demand of complainant.
7. The law regarding considerations to be kept in mind while framing charge has been enunciated in UOI Vs. Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 SC 366 wherein it has been held that:
"(1). That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 228 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 7 of 10 finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) 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;
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused;
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no provision granting the accused the right to file any material on record at the stage of framing of charge existed and that was possible only at the stage of trial. It was observed that:-
"All the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record and sifting of evidence to prima facie find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and documents produced by the prosecution and not the accused. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 8 of 10 the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused".
9. It is the settled position that at stage of framing of charge court has to see whether on the basis of material on record there is sufficient material to frame the charge against the accused persons. Thus, at the time of framing of charge, Ld. Trial Court had to see the material available on record and in the presence of statement of victim on record, wherein allegations of committing offence punishable U/s 498A/354/406/34 IPC were leveled against the revisionists / accused persons, it cannot be said that the order on charge passed by Ld. MM was in any way infirm, illegal or perverse.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused that Ld. Trial Court erred while framing the charge for the offences punishable U/s 498A/354/406/34IPC against revisionist / accused persons. No illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 passed by Ld. Trial Court. It is found to be well reasoned and legally sound decision.
11. The present revision petition, filed by the revisionists / accused persons is hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 of the Ld. Trial Court is upheld.
Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 9 of 10
12. A copy of this order be given to Revisionists and be also sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the TCR immediately.
13. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SUSHILSUSHIL KUMAR Pronounced in open Court on this 04th day of November, 2023. KUMAR Date: 2023.11.04 16:51:03 +0530 (SUSHIL KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge-04 North: Rohini Courts: Delhi. 04.11.2023 Deepak Verma & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 296/2022 Page No. 10 of 10