Delhi District Court
Viresh Nayyar vs State on 5 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY BANSAL:
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE03 (East):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: Delhi
Criminal Revision No.: 20/14
(02402R0303362009)
Viresh Nayyar
Resident of
798, JOSEPH CLUB DRIVEMABLETON
GA 30126 USA
AND ALSO AT
1405, POPULAR PLACE APARTMENT 3900
GA BUSBEE PARKWAYKEENNESAW
GA 30144 USA .... Revisionist
Vs.
State ..... Respondent
Date of Institution: 13.10.2009.
Judgment Reserved on: 05.05.2014.
Date of Judgment: 05.05.2014
FIR No.: 445/04
PS: Shakarpur
U/s: 498A/406/34 IPC
ORDER:
1. The revisionist preferred this criminal revision petition under Sec. 399 Crl Revision No. 20/2014 Viresh Nayyer Vs State Page No. 1 of 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") feeling aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2009 (impugned order) passed by ld MM whereby it was ordered that a prima facie a case for framing of charge under Sec. 498A Indian Penal Code ("IPC") is made out against the revisionist.
2. I have heard Sh. Manoj Tiwari, ld counsel for the petitioner/revisionist and Shri Abdul Aleem, ld. Chief Prosecutor for State/respondent. I have also perused the record including the TCR.
3. The facts germane to the present revision are that complainant lodged a report with the police with the allegations of 498A/406/34 IPC against accused persons. It was alleged in the complaint that behaviour of accused persons was cruel and intolerable but she tolerated all such humiliations and cruelities committed on her under the hope that some good sense would prevail upon them one day but all in vain. In the complaint there were allegations of demand of Zen car. It was also alleged that complainant was living in abroad under a constant fear to her life. In the complaint it was alleged that on 05.08.2003 revisionist started cursing her parents when he came to know that only a small gift had been given to the complainant and no gift was sent for him. It was also alleged in the complaint that said gift was even thrown away which caused mental harassment to her. There are also allegations of physical torture and confinement in a room in India at the hands of revisionist. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR bearing no. 445/04 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC PS Shakarpur was registered.
4. On the basis of material available on record, ld. MM vide impugned Crl Revision No. 20/2014 Viresh Nayyer Vs State Page No. 2 of 5 order, a charge under Sec. 498A IPC only was ordered to be framed against the revisionist while discharging remaining accused persons for alleged offences including the revisionist under Sec. 406 IPC.
5. Revisionist has preferred the present criminal revision petition on various grounds contending that ld. MM did not appreciate the facts properly and that case of the revisionist is also at par with coaccused namely Smt. Raj, mother of revisionist, who has been discharged by ld. MM.
6. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the State that order is well reasoned and there is no illegality or perversity and same be upheld. It is also submitted that there are specific allegations of 498A IPC against the revisionist.
7. I have considered the submissions carefully. I have carefully perused the impugned order including the TCR.
8. Law regarding framing of charge is well settled. At this stage, the defence of the accused is not to be gone into in detail. The material collected by the investigating agency is to be considered on its face value. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, broad probability of the case and total effect of the evidence and documents produced before it and any basic infirmity appearing in the case can be considered. However, appreciation of evidence, which is required to be done at the final stage is not permissible at the time of framing of charge. Reference may be made to the cases reported as Bharat Parikh Vs CBI & Anr.) [2009 (I) AD (Crl.) SC 190]; Bhagwanti Vs. State [2002 (1) JCC 127] and Kanti Bhadra Shah and Another V. State of West Bengal Crl Revision No. 20/2014 Viresh Nayyer Vs State Page No. 3 of 5 [AIR 2000 SC 522].
9. Perusal of the FIR shows that there are specific allegations against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A IPC. Complainant has given details of the cruelities committed upon her at the hands of the revisionist. Ld. counsel for the revisionist argued that even if those allegations are taken as correct, same were not in regard to demand of dowry and hence, there was no cruelty at all punishable under Sec. 498A IPC. The contention of ld. counsel is misconceived. Firstly, there were allegations of demand of Zen car. Secondly, demand of dowry is not sine qua non for an offence to be made out under Sec. 498A IPC. The explanation of term "cruelty" as provided under Sec. 498 A IPC itself clears the doubt. Section 498A IPC is reproduced as under:
498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, 'cruelty' means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
10. It can be seen that harassment meted out to a woman in connection with dowry is only one kind of cruelty made punishable thereunder. The willful conduct of any person which may drive the woman to commit suicide or may Crl Revision No. 20/2014 Viresh Nayyer Vs State Page No. 4 of 5 cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) is also cruelty and has been made punishable.
11. There are allegations against the petitioner of such a willful conduct.
12. There was no parity between case against petitioner and his mother/coaccused Smt. Raj Nayyar. Complainant stayed with the mother of the petitioner for a very brief period. On this account, petitioner can not claim parity.
13. In view of the above observations, I am of the view that there is no illegality, error or perversity in the impugned order and hence, same is upheld. Resultantly, present criminal revision is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
14. A copy of this order be placed in the TCR and same be sent to court concerned immediately.
15. File of revision petition be consigned to RR.
Announced in open court th on 05 day of May, 2014 (Sanjay Bansal) ASJ03 (East) KKD Courts: Delhi: 05.05.2014.
Crl Revision No. 20/2014 Viresh Nayyer Vs State Page No. 5 of 5