Delhi District Court
Cr No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra vs . State & Another. on 20 December, 2013
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
Criminal Revision No. 1/2013.
Aditya Malhotra,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Malhotra,
R?o 36D, 3rd Floor, Sai Apartments,
Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi. ... Revisionist.
Vs.
1. State of Delhi,
(Government of NCT of Delhi).
2. Madhuri Gaikwad,
W/o Sh. Aditya Malhotra,
D/o Sh. Man Singh Gaikwad,
R/o E501, SG Apartment,
Sector 6, Dwarka,
New Delhi. ... Respondents.
Date of Institution. : 2.1.2013.
Arguments Advanced On. : 12.12.2013.
Date of Order. : 20.12.2013.
20.12.2013.
Present: Revisionist (accused before the ld. Trial Court).
Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for
Page No. 1 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
State/respondent no. 1.
None for respondent no. 2 (complainant before the ld. Trial Court).
The present revision petition u/s 397 CrPC is fixed for orders, for today.
Arguments on the present revision petition were heard on 12.12.2013. I had heard Sh. L.D. Mual, ld. counsel for revisionist (accused before the ld. Trial Court) and Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no. 1 and none had appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 (complainant before the ld. Trial Court) to address arguments.
Perused the entire record, including TCR, carefully.
:: ORDER ::
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present revision petition u/s 397 CrPC, filed by the revisionist (husband/accused), against the impugned order dated 1.12.2012 of Ms. Tyagita Singh, ld. MM (Mahila Court), Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "State Vs. Aditya Malhotra", FIR No. 55/10 of PS Dwarka Sector 23, u/s 498A/406 IPC, vide which charge for the offence u/s 498A IPC was framed against the revisionist (husband/accused).
Page No. 2 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
2. Ld. counsel for revisionist has stated that the revisionist was married with the respondent no. 2 on 27.2.2003 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies and that the respondent no. 2 made a complaint dated 10.8.2009 to the SHO PS Dwarka, against the revisionist (husband), her father in law, mother in law and sister in law and vide order dated 11.1.2010, Sh. Sanjay Jindal, the then ld. ACMM1, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, directed the SHO concerned to register FIR under the appropriate provisions of law on the complaint of the respondent no. 2, made to the said Court and after filing of the charge sheet, the ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC and summoned accused Aditya Malhotra (revisionist only herein), vide order dated 3.8.2012 and vide impugned order dated 1.12.2012, charge u/s 498A IPC was framed against the revisionist.
3. Ld. counsel for revisionist has further submitted that the general and vague allegations, regarding cruelty and dowry harassment against the revisionist, have been leveled by the respondent no. 2 upto 17.12.2006 and since cognizance in this case was taken on 3.8.2012 for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC (which are punishable with imprisonment upto for 3 years), therefore, same was time bared i.e. beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 Page No. 3 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
years, because as per Section 468 (2) (c) CrPC, the period of limitation prescribed for offences punishable upto 3 years (like 498A, 406 IPC etc.) is, 3 years. He has further drawn my attention to the certified copy of joint statement dated 7.1.2009 of the revisionist and the respondent no. 2, in HMA Petition No. 5/09, on oath, wherein they have stated that they had married on 27.2.2003 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies and that they are living separately since 17.12.2006, due to differences in temperament and attitude and also to the certified copy of similar affidavit of complainant dated 6.1.2009 filed in the aforesaid case and further, to the judgment dated 9.1.2009 of Sh. Sunil Rana, the then ld. ADJ3, West District, Delhi, in the said HMA petition, vide which the first motion petition for divorce between the parties was allowed, to argue strongly that since the respondent no. 2 was living separately from the revisionist since 17.12.2006, therefore, the allegations made in the complaint of the respondent no. 2, pertaining to the period after 17.12.2006, are false on the face of it and further that the cognizance of the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC vide order dated 3.8.2012, which was beyond prescribed period of limitation of 3 years, was time barred. He has further submitted that no specific allegation mentioning the date, time or place or as to the Page No. 4 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
alleged source of money regarding alleged fulfillment of dowry demand of revisionist, has not brought on record by the respondent no. 2, for the period prior to 17.12.2006 from the date of marriage.
4. The admitted facts are that the respondent no. 2 (complainant before the ld. Trial Court) was married with revisionist (accused before the ld. Trial Court) on 27.2.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and after marriage, both the parties lived in their matrimonial home, till 17.12.2006. Further, a complaint dated 10.8.2009 was filed by the respondent no. 2 before the SHO, PS Dwarka, and vide order dated 11.1.2010, Sh. Sanjay Jindal, the then ld. ACMM1, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, directed the SHO concerned to register FIR under the appropriate provisions of law and to submit his report, after due investigation. Thereafter, on 9.1.2012, the charge sheet in the present case was filed against the accused Aditya Malhotra (revisionist herein and husband of respondent no. 2). Vide order dated 3.8.2012, the concerned ld. MM took the cognizance for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC against the revisionist (husband) Aditya Malhotra only. Vide impugned order dated 1.12.2012, charge u/s 498A IPC was framed against the accused (revisionist herein) Aditya Malhotra, which has been Page No. 5 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
impugned.
5. The first ground taken by the revisionist is that the complaint dated 10.8.2009 pertaining to allegations, regarding offence u/s 498A IPC, are with respect to the period upto 17.12.2006, when the respondent no. 2 resided with the revisionist at her matrimonial home. It is argued that the taking of cognizance for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC (which are punishable with imprisonment upto for 3 years), vide order dated 3.8.2012 for the alleged offences committed upto 17.12.2006, was time bared i.e. beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years, since as per Section 468 (2) (c) CrPC, the period of limitation prescribed for offences punishable upto 3 years is, 3 years.
6. On perusing of the certified copy of joint statement of revisionist and respondent no. 2, made on 7.1.2009 in HMA Petition No. 5/09 and the affidavit dated 6.1.2009 of the complainant, the said fact is borne out from the record. In the said statement, the respondent no. 2 has admitted that since 17.12.2006, she is living separately.
7. Thus, it is admitted case of the respondent no. 2 that she stayed with the revisionist upto 17.12.006 in her Page No. 6 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
matrimonial home. Therefore, prima facie the alleged acts of harassment and cruelty are pertaining to her stay at her aforesaid matrimonial home, upto the said period, whereas she had made the first complaint for the aforesaid offences only on 10.8.2009, upon which the FIR was registered. The cognizance for the offence was taken vide order dated 3.8.2012, which was beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC, as prescribed u/s 468 (2) (c) CrPC. Admittedly, neither any application for condonation of delay was moved before the ld. Trial Court nor any such delay was formally condoned by the ld. Trial Court. Further, even the charge sheet was filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the cognizance for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC, vide order dated 3.8.2012, was time barred.
8. Let us assume for arguments sake that the cognizance was not time barred. On similar allegation, the ld. Trial Court did not summon the mother in law, father in law and sister in law, whereas it summoned this accused only for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC and framed the charge u/s 498A IPC against him, without passing any speaking order as to how the said charge against the revisionist is made out. There is not even a specific allegation of cruelty Page No. 7 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
or harassment relating to dowry demand against the revisionist for the period upto 17.12.2006, when the respondent no. 2 stayed with him at her matrimonial home. Admittedly, it was a love marriage. The remaining allegation leveled are general and vague without any specific instances and also pertain to the period after 17.12.2006, when the complainant admittedly was residing separately and are relating to the various litigations initiated by the revisionist against his wife (respondent no. 2 herein). Neither the specific date or time nor the mode and manner of alleged harassment and cruelty or even the place and in whose presence or as to what role was actually played by the revisionist or whether the respondent no. 2 made any complaint before any authority, including police, regarding the same, relating to alleged harassment and cruelty, prior to filing of complaint dated 10.8.2009, is there. Also no supporting material to corroborate the said allegations are there. Further, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent no. 2 had made any complaint before Crime Against Women Cell, for redressal of her grievances. Also, no list of istridhan article given on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to the revisionist or his family, duly acknowledged by the revisionist at the time of marriage, has been filed on record.
Page No. 8 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Amar Pal Singh Chadha @ Sonu Vs. State & Another", 145 (2007) DLT 301, in para nos. 14 to 16, has held as under: "14. On the merits of the matter, suffice would it be to state that the inordinate delay (nearly 6 years) in filing the complaint after the complainant had withdrawn from her matrimonial house gives rise to a presumption in favour of the petitioner that no Istridhan of the complainant was retained by him or any of his family members.
15. I must additionally note that the FIR is the usual FIR which I notice in each and every case. All members of the family of the inlaws, uncles, aunts, married sisterinlaws, their husbands, married brothers of the petitioner, their wives, parents of the petitioner, even the brothers and sisters of the fatherinlaw and the motherinlaw of the complainant have been roped in. The number of accused disclosed in the complaint are 15.
16. Prima facie, complainant is trying to harass virtually every member of the family of her inlaws."
10. Also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Page No. 9 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
"Neeraj Gupta & Others Vs. CBI", 2007 (3) RCR Criminal 872, in para no. 11, has held as under:
"11. The task of the court, at the charge framing stage is to assess the overall weight of the evidence presented before it and reasonably infer whether grave suspicion exists that the accused, prima facie committed the offence alleged. The exercise of sifting the evidence involves, to a certain extent, value determination about the tentative worth of such evidence. Yet this exercise cannot be confused to a standard discharged at the time of trial i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubts. The court has to make a reasonable assessment; if upon application of such a bench mark, no prima facie case is made out, accused would be entitled to be discharged. It is also settled law that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be preferred."
11. The FIR does not discloses specific allegations against the revisionist and prima facie the dispute appears to be arising out of matrimonial bickering between them and is a result of wear and tear of life and it would be abuse of legal and judicial process to mechanically burden the revisionist with the trial. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of UP & Another", 2013 (1) CC Cases (SC) 46.
Page No. 10 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
12. It is well settled that for framing of charge existence of grave suspicion against an accused for committing the offence, has to be there. It is not that on every slightest suspicion, the charge has to be framed. Further, in this case, there is inordinate delay of 3 years by the respondent no. 2, in making of complaint regarding the alleged acts of harassment, cruelty and criminal breach of trust of her istridhan articles. However, her bald allegations are not prima facie supported with any other material and rather said allegations have been leveled without any details and without any corroborative verifiable material. Also, she has not specifically stated the date or month, when she asked for return of her istridhan articles. This coupled with the fact that it was a love marriage between the parties and it is not the case of complainant that any dowry was demanded or given in marriage. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no grave suspicion existed against the revisionist that he had committed the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC. Consequently, the impugned order of the ld. Trial Court of framing of charge u/s 498A IPC, suffers from infirmity and illegality. Resultantly, the same is set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.
Page No. 11 of 12. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 1/13. Aditya Malhotra Vs. State & Another.
13. The revisionist (accused before the ld. Trial Court) stands discharged for the offences u/s 498A IPC. His bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged.
14. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent to the ld. Trial Court, for information and consignment.
15. Revision petition file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 20.12.2013.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 12 of 12. Contd... ... ...