Delhi High Court
Sadhu Ram And Others vs Kishan Kumar on 13 January, 1986
ORDER
1. The present petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against an order dt. October 27, 1984 of Shri P. D. Jarwal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing on the complaint of Krishan Kumar respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) the summoning of the present petitioners in respect to commission of an offence punishable under S. 420 IPC.
2. On March 16, 1983, Sunita daughter of the complainant was married to Khem Chand, petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents, petitioners 3 and 5 are the brothers, petitioners 4 and 6 respective wives of the said brothers and petitioners 7 to 9 are the sisters of said Khem Chand. The marriage was unsuccessful one.
3. The allegations of the complainant are that he was cheated inasmuch as although Khem Chand was suffering from mental disorder, yet that fact was deliberately concealed from him before the marriage took place. The contention of the complainant is that not only that there was concealment, on the other hand there were all praises and admirations of good health, competence and business acumen of Khem Chand and it was represented that he was earning between Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month on account of good running of his business. The grievance of the complainant, therefore, is that had the fact about the mental disorder of Khem Chand been known, he would not have agreed to marry his daughter, an only female child and would not have spent money, which was more than rupees one lakh, on marriage.
3A. Although in the complaint the complainant wanted summoning of the present petitioners also in respect of commission of offences punishable under Ss. 323, 504, 506 IPC etc., the learned Magistrate confined the summoning only in respect of the commission of the offence punishable under S. 420 IPC.
3B. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties I have gone through the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded before the Magistrate and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the first five paras. of the complaint it is mentioned that petitioner No. 1 approached the complainant with a proposal for marrying the daughter of the latter with the son of the former and that the former praised about the qualities of his son a lot and that thereafter petitioners 3 and 5 had also been joining in that chorus of admiration of Khem Chand. In para. 6, the complainant had been using the word 'accused' while alleging that they were full of praises for Khem Chand and were telling that he was a very good match for Sunita. However, this involvement of the ladies out of the petitioners was not supported by evidence. In para 6 it was stated that all the accused praised about the qualities of Khem Chand when the complainant and his son Bala Prasad visited the house of Sadhu Ram, petitioner. But in the statement of Kishan Kumar as a witness during preliminary evidence, that fact was not supported and rather it was stated that on 11th February 1983 the petitioners (names of the petitioners were also mentioned) praised Khem Chand when they came to the house of the complainant. This incident of 11th February 1983 was not specifically mentioned in the complaint. Under these circumstances, as far as the ladies out of the petitioners are concerned, it cannot be said that there were good grounds for proceeding against them in respect of the commission of any offence.
4. However, the case against petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 5 is prima facie made out from the evidence. It may be recalled that the marriage between Khem Chand and Sunita took place on 16th March 1983. Yet before that, as the evidence of Dr. G. C. Mujral (PW 4) is, according to the record of G. B. Pant Hospital, Khem Chand had an attack some time in 1982 of 'manic depressive psychosis', which is a mental disease. Dr. Mujral also stated that Khem Chand was brought to the Hospital on 22nd July 1983 and was discharged on 10th August 1983 and that he remained admitted in the hospital on account of attack of the aforesaid disease. Hence it can be said prima facie that he was suffering from mental disease, yet the same was not disclosed to the father of the girl, i.e. the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that there was cheating on the part of petitioner 2 also in as much as a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited in her name in a bank so that the said money could be utilised for purchasing a scooter for Khem Chand whenever such a scooter could be available but that instead of keeping that money in back till the scooter could be purchased, the said money was spent by her which meant that she was a party to the fraud of dishonestly taking away Rs. 10,000/-. However, such facts about fraud have not been clearly brought out and in fact emphasis has been laid on the allegation that the petitioners has withheld the material information that Khem Chand was suffering from mental disorder.
6. Under the above circumstances I find that the petition of Sadhu Ram, Suresh Kumar and Prem Chand petitioners fails and has to be dismissed while the petition of the remaining petitioners, who are ladies must be accepted.
7. I, therefore, confirm the order of the learned Magistrate as far as petitioners 1, 3, and 5 are concerned. The summoning of the remaining petitioners is hereby set aside and the proceedings against the said petitioners i.e. petitioners Nos. 2, 4, 6 to 9 are quashed.
8. Now the learned Magistrate shall proceed against Sadhu Ram, Suresh Kumar and Prem Chand who are accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 before him. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Magistrate for proceeding further.
9. The petitioners Sadhu Ram, Suresh Kumar and Prem Chand are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 4th February 1986.
10. Criminal Misc. (Main) 172 of 1985 stands disposed of.
11. Order accordingly.