Delhi District Court
Rachna Jus Roy vs State on 25 August, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 47/15
FIR No. 295/09
PS Pahar Ganj
Rachna Jus Roy
w/o Pranay Jus Roy
d/o Radhey Mohan Gupta
r/o Shree Ram Bhawan,
1-B, Goela Lane, Under Hill Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi
......Petitioner/complainant
Versus
1. State
2.Pranay Jus Roy
s/o Prakash Jus Roy
r/o 3/8, Rani Jhansi Road,
Delhi
3.Prakash Jus Roy
s/o late Prem Jus Roy
r/o 3/8, Rani Jhansi Road,
Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 1 of 8
2
4.Smt.Santosh Jus Roy
w/o Prakash Jus Roy
r/o 3/8, Rani Jhansi Road,
Delhi ........Respondents
Date of institution : 02.07.2013
Date of receiving of case/revision : 24.03.2015
Date of conclusion of final arguments/
reservation of order : 20.08.2015
Date of pronouncement of order : 25.08.2015
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.03.2013 whereby the learned M.M., Mahila Court in case titled as State Vs. Pranay Jus Roy, FIR No. 395/09, PS Paharganj discharged the accused persons of the offence u/s 406 IPC, the appellant/complainant has preferred the present revision petition.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition in the nutshell are that the marriage between the complainant and respondent No.2/Pranay Jus Roy was solemnised on 09.12.2003 at Delhi and out of this wedlock one daughter was born on 16.07.2007. Many expensive gifts, gold coins, jewelery and cash was given at the time of meeting, engagement ceremony, Tikka, marriage and other occasions following the marriage to the in-laws of the complainant, particularly the husband and Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 2 of 8 3 parents-in-law. Initially, the complainant and respondent No.2 resided at 3/A, Rani Jhansi Road, Delhi in the matrimonial house where the complainant was regularly taunted, harassed and beaten. Even other relatives of her husband and in-laws used to regularly interfere in her marriage and criticize her at social gathering. She was regularly physically assaulted by her husband for smallest of reasons. Her husband and in- laws used to make frequent demands for money on one pretext or the other. Her husband left for Middle East in October 2004 but she was not permitted to leave with her husband. To establish his business in Dubai, complainant was asked to demand Rs.10 lakhs from her father. When it was decided that her husband would move to Dubai permanently, she managed to leave for Dubai along with her husband in December 2004. When she left for Dubai, all her jewellery and expensive articles were retained by her in-laws. The bank locker in which her jewellery was kept also belonged to her in-laws. In September 2005 when she came back to India for a short period, she was again beaten up by her mother-in-law. When she came back to India in May 2007, she was expecting her daughter through IVF procedure, the expense of which was incurred by her parents. Even when she returned finally to India, she was constantly tortured by her husband and parents-in-law. On 03.03.2009, when complainant and her husband were returning from NSCI Club, he was dead drunk and raised a demand of flat from her. When she refused to comply with his demand, she was assaulted by her husband due to which her nose started bleeding. She managed to make a call to her father, after which her younger brother came to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she left her matrimonial home for good in her wearing apparels. Despite repeated requests, her Istridhan articles were not handed over to her. Complainant thus filed complaint dated 14.05.2009 addressed to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, CAW Cell (Central), Delhi. Along with the Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 3 of 8 4 complaint she also attached list of Istridhan lying with her in-laws which they had not returned despite her repeated requests.
3. On the basis of the complaint of the revisionist, FIR No.295/09, PS Paharganj, U/ss 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against her husband and parents-in-law and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
4. Arguments were heard on charge and the learned M.M. vide impugned order dated 23.03.2013 directed framing of charge against the husband/respondent No.1, father-in-law/respondent No.2, and mother-in- law/respondent No.3 u/s 498A IPC but discharged them for the offence u/s 406 IPC.
5. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have meticulously gone through the trial court record.
6. During the course of arguments, it was noticed that page No.3 of the complaint dated 14.05.2009 was missing and that the FIR and charge sheet were also filed without referring to the contents of the missing page No.3. Accordingly, IO was summoned who pleaded ignorance and submitted that the complaint was received without page No.3. Be that as it may, learned Counsel for the complainant was directed to highlight the allegations attracting Section 406 IPC from the material on record. It was then submitted by him that prior to the filing of charge sheet in FIR No. 295/09, the complainant had also filed complaint case No.284/1/09, PS Paharganj, u/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against the respondents. Since, in the meantime, FIR bearing No. 295/09 had already been registered against the respondents vide order dated 05.02.2013, the learned M.M., Mahila Court stayed the complaint case and Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 4 of 8 5 tagged the complaint case with the case FIR No.295/09, u/ss 498A/406 IPC titled as State Vs. Pranay Jus Roy.
7. It was then argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that since complaint case No. 284/1/09 was attached with the case FIR No.295/09 in which the impugned order was passed, the copy of the complaint dated 14.05.2009 which was complete in all respect be perused.
8. The bare perusal of the complaint shows that the missing page No.3 comprising of part of para 5, para 6 and part of para 7 demonstrates the manner in which the complainant had entrusted her Istridhan to her in- laws. The relevant portions are here as under:
"Para 5. That as scheduled, the engagement took place on 12th October 2003 at Hotel Taj Palace, New Delhi. There was a gathering of around 500 persons; 350 persons from the side of my in-laws and 150 persons from my side. Before the engagement, on 9th October 2003 my parents gave to my in- laws Rs.25,00,000/- in cash in all including Tikka as well as towards 'milni' because my in-laws represented that they wanted to handle the milni at the engagement time on their own. On the engagement ceremony cash, gifts, gold jewellery was presented to me as well as to the above persons as enumerated in the list of 'Istridhan' attached as Annexure 'A'. All the gifts given to all above mentioned persons were expensive and branded because my mother-in-laws had represented that they use only branded stuff so things given should be at par with their standard. All the cash, jewellery articles and other articles on their asking, were entrusted to my husband and my in- laws by me as they represented that after marriage. I had to go and live with them in their house only.
Para 6. That soon after the engagement ceremony, my father-in-law started conveying to my father that the marriage should be decent and a big car should be brought by me in consonance of the status of the in-laws. Accordingly my father arranged for Hyundai Sonata car valued at Rs.11,00,000/-. Besides all the other articles of 'Istridhan', my in-laws are still illegally keeping the said car which was entrusted to them at the time of wedding. (The said car was purchased by my father in his own name and after marriage when my parents realized the demanding nature of my Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 5 of 8 6 in-laws, in particular my mother-in-law, they decided to delay the transfer of the car to the name of my husband and till date even the insurance premium is paid by my father).
Para 7. That as stated the marriage took place on 9th December 2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Hotel Marriot as the all above mentioned persons wanted the marriage to take place at the best 5 star hotel of the city. There were about 450 guests from the side of the in-laws and 350 from our side. At the time of the marriage, further gifts were given to the in-laws. On the said occasion, cash, gifts, gold jewellery articles, clothes (around a hundred sarees and suits) etc. were given to me by my mother, relations friends as well as the in- laws, which has been specified in the attached Annexure 'A'. There was a collection of at least Rs.10,00,000/- in cash besides other gifts from relatives and friends at the time of marriage, about which my mother-in-law used to complaint throughout and started taunting me that my relatives should have given more and I had brought insufficient 'NAQADI' (cash). All the cash, jewellery articles and other articles were then and there entrusted to the aforesaid persons, as per their demand at the said venue, on the pretext of safe custody."
9. Further, in para 49 of her complaint she has specifically alleged that:
"All the articles of my Istridhan as are lying with all the said persons, have been enumerated in detail in the list of Istridhan enclosed herewith as Annexure-A. All the above noted in-laws are illegally retaining my articles of Istridhan and have not restored to me, in spite of my asking for restoration of the same and their last refusal was on 10.04.2009."
As already discussed above, the complainant also annexed with her complaint Annexure-A giving list of Istridhan lying in trust with the in-laws which they have not returned despite requests being made to them."
10. It is a matter of record that during the investigation of FIR No.295/09, the in-laws of the complainant were directed to bring the Istridhan of the complainant to CAW Cell on 03.02.2010. They however, brought only few articles which also included few electronics and a sonata car which was gifted to the complainant but stood in the name of her father. The Istridhan Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 6 of 8 7 articles brought by the in-laws of the complainant were duly received by her on 03.02.2010, however, it was mentioned by her that these articles were only a small part of her Istridhan and the remaining were yet to be handed over to her.
11. In view of the said circumstances, it cannot be said that no prima facie case u/s 406 IPC is made out. It is not the case where the complainant has only made bald allegations regarding entrustment and specification of articles. The respondents were found in possession of the Istridhan articles of the complainant which as per the allegation were entrusted to them and despite her repeated demands were not handed over to her. The fact that the Sonata car stood in the name of the father of the complainant and was found to be in possession of her in-laws which was delivered by them to the complainant before the CAW Cell on 03.02.2010 also prima facie shows that the same was entrusted to them and was being used by them.
12. It is settled law which has been reiterated again and again by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India that at the time of framing of charge probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. In State of Maharashtra & Others Vs. Somnath Thapa & Others reported as (1996) 4 SCC 659 a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court held that, "if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists. To put it differently; if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 7 of 8 813. Thus, even if missing page No.3 of the complaint dated 14.05.2009 is ignored, then also in my opinion there is sufficient material on record, in the light of above discussion to frame charge u/s 406 IPC against respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. The impugned order discharging the respondents of the charge u/s 406 IPC is thereby set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 02.09.2015 for framing of charge u/s 406 IPC.
Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced and signed in the open Court on 25th August, 2015 (Hemani Malhotra) Addl. Sessions Judge-05(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Rev. No. 47/15 Page 8 of 8