Delhi District Court
Fir No.198/2012; Ps Kalkaji State vs . Rahul Kesarwani 1 Of 37 on 14 May, 2019
In the Court of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan, Metropolitan
Magistrate (Mahila Court) (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No: 198/2012
PS: Kalkaji
U/s : 498A IPC
State v. Rahul Kesarwani
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 24.09.2013
Cr.C No. : 85935/2016
Name of the complainant : Sunita Bhuyan
D/o Sh. Kailash Bhuyan
R/o J1/226, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Name & address of the accused : Rahul Kesarwani
S/o S.K. Kesarwani
R/o H.No. 83833/95, Flat No.201,
Kamalapuri Colony, PhaseI,
Sri Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad500073
Also at: H.No.1319, Tower A1,
Supertech Eco VillageI, Greater
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
Offence Complained of : U/s 498A/406 IPC
Offence Charged of : U/s 498A IPC
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 1 of 37
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date of arguments : 04.05.2019
Date of announcing of order : 14.05.2019
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that since the marriage of the complainant Sunita Bhuyan with accused Rahul Kesarwani, he subjected the complainant Sunita Bhuyan to cruelty and harassed her for bringing less dowry.
2. As per the complaint of the complainant, she was married to the accused Rahul Kesarwani on 06.05.2011 in New Delhi as per Hindu rites and rituals. The marriage was performed at Golden Fiesta, AISF Building. Complainant met the accused through online portal first time at Connaught place. She was informed by the accused that he was working as a trained Merchant Navy Engineer and was earning in lacs per month. Further that he was on a study leave and preparing for further courses. In August 2010, the family of the accused visited the parental house of the complainant situated at J1/226, DDA Flats, Kalkaji. Thereafter, a small roka ceremony was performed on 05.09.2010 at the parental residence of the accused and all the expenses for the same were borne by the complainant's parents. At that time, the travel expenses of the family members of the accused, expensive gifts for the family of the accused were paid by the family of the complainant as per the desire of the accused persons. Accused rejoined his duties on 09.10.2010 FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 2 of 37 in United Ocean Company situated at Mumbai. Both the families decided to have the engagement ceremony on 29.04.2011 and wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011 and thereafter, upon the request of the accused as he had no place to stay in Delhi, a rented accommodation was arranged by the family of complainant which was House No.1675/C5, ground floor, Govindpuri, Kalkaji and all the furnishings were arranged by the family of complainant on their own expenses. The engagement was solemnised on 29.04.2011 at Jahapanah Club. On 05.05.2011, one day prior to the marriage, the mother of complainant received a call from the mother of accused and demanded a car from the family of complainant. The family of complainant showed their incapacity for the same. The marriage was performed on 06.05.2011 and parents of the complainant gave several expensive gifts to the accused and his family members alongwith cash amount of Rs.5 lacs. On the next day of the marriage, the complainant was harassed by her inlaws and accused as they were unhappy with the expenses of marriage. Complainant was taunted by the parents of accused. Soon after marriage, accused started pressurizing the complainant to hand over her share in the parental property to him and also all her gold jewellery and cash. Thereafter, complainant alongwith accused went for honeymoon to Manali between 11.05.2011 to 15.05.2011 where the accused again misbehaved with her and did not behave well with her. She was hit by the accused and complainant was fearing for her life. Soon after coming back from the honeymoon, accused forced the complainant to rejoin her duties. On 29.05.2011, accused alongwith his mother and sister assaulted FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 3 of 37 the complainant for more dowry and tortured her physically and mentally. Accused often subjected the complainant to physical violence and mental torture. On several occasions, accused gave beatings to the complainant. On 10.07.2011 which was a Sunday, around 10.00 AM complainant told the accused that the rent of the house had to be paid alongwith water and electricity bill but accused picked up a quarrel with the complainant and told her that all the expenses she should get from her parents and also asked her to get Rs.1 lakh from her mother and when the complainant denied to do the same, accused started throwing all utensils and glasses on the floor. Complainant was scared and made a call to the police. However, after an hour accused packed his bag and left the house and did not return. Further, during the cohabitation between the parties accused used to have a butcher knife with him in his suitcase. On several occasions, accused had threatened the complainant by showing the butcher knife and even threatened the complainant to eliminate her with the help of criminal elements. On 10.07.2011, at 9.30 PM complainant made a call at 100 number regarding a theft in the rented house of 1675/C5, Govindpuri which was done by her husband and he had stolen all her gold jewellery and documents which were admitted by an email dated 29.12.2011. On 31.10.2011, she again filed a complaint at PS Kalkaji against her husband regarding his repeated visits to the parental house of the complainant for demand of articles. Complainant also filed her complaint on 26.12.2011 regarding forceful entry of accused in the parental home of the complainant and the fact that the accused had raised FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 4 of 37 demands and slapped the complainant and also caused injury to her. Complainant had made a call at 100 number. During October, 2011 to January, 2012 complainant had received several calls from the accused and his friends in which she was abused. Accused even tried to contact the complainant, her relatives and colleagues through calls, emails with the intention to malign the image of the complainant. Complainant was harassed by the accused by committing aforesaid acts and therefore, she filed the present complaint before PS Kalkaji.
3. Pursuant to this complaint dated 20.01.2012 against the accused, FIR was registered on 06.07.2012 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 24.09.2013. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused. Charge was framed against accused Rahul Kesarwani vide order dated 22.03.2016 for the offence punishable U/s 498A IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses.
PW1 Sunita Bhuyan (complainant) deposed that she met accused Rahul Kesarwani through matrimonial site 'Shadi.com'. In August, 2010, she did not remember the exact date, she met with Rahul Kesarwai at Cafe Coffee Day, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Her mother started conversation with FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 5 of 37 Rahul regarding her marriage with him. On 29.09.2010 a small 'Rokka' ceremony was performed at her residence in the presence of her family and the family of Rahul Kesarwani including his cousins. On 09.10.2010 Rahul Kesarwani went to his assignment in Merchant Navy. After six months, he came back in April, 2011, and thereafter as her father was not keeping well at that time, so father of Rahul Kesarwani, namely Swadesh Kesarwani came to their house to discuss about the marriage and related ceremonies. She got engaged to Rahul Kesarwani on 29.04.2011 at Jahanpnah Club at Alakhnanda in front of her family, friends and relatives and there was no friends or relatives of Rahul Kesarwani. Only his parents and his siblings were present in the engagement ceremony. In the engagement ceremony, all the expenses were borne by her family. The pictures of the engagement ceremony were mark from PW1/A1 to A12. During the period of her engagement with accused, he used to call her from ship when he used to be on assignment with his company and also mentioned via emails to credit some amount of Rs.10,000/ on two occasions to his younger brother Rohit Kesarwani. On which she had transferred the said amount. When accused Rahul returned to India from his sailing assignment, he went to Hyderabad to meet his brother Rohit, he also asked her to arrange for flight ticket to Hyderabad, on which she purchased the said ticket through her credit card. The email generated ticket of the abovesaid flight was mark A. Thereafter, she was called by her would be motherinlaw Rani Kanchan Lata, and also by Rahul that she should arrange one accommodation before marriage as they were not having FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 6 of 37 any accommodation in Delhi. Then she alongwith her mother Bilashi Bhuyan arranged some accommodation as asked by Rahul and his mother. The rent agreement of the premises taken on rent was Ex.PW1/B. Before marriage, sister of Rahul, Sweta used to come to her parental house to meet her. Then she came to know from Sweta about Rahul that he was drug addict and this fact was revealed to her two days prior to her marriage. Thereafter, she got married to Rahul on 06.05.2011. On 07.05.2011, she alongwith Rahul went to the same rented house in Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, Delhi which was arranged by her on demand of her mother in law and younger brother of her husband Rohit. On 11.05.2011, they went to Shimla for their honeymoon, till then Rahul's mother and sister stayed at their rented house at Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, Delhi. Before leaving for Shimla they both shared their bed only for once but no sexual relationship happened between them. At Shimla, her husband Rahul also used to sleep separately and there she came to know that he has sexual issues with him. After their honeymoon, they returned to Delhi. After 34 days of their return, when she was doing cleaning work at her home, she found one briefcase of her husband which she opened and found certain medical reports relating to her husband which includes one discharge summary from a Mental Asylum in Saket relating to her husband. From that discharge report, she came to know that her husband got treated for his mental illness for more than one year there. It was only then, she came to know that she was misleaded by his family members regarding this fact as they hided his mental illness and his treatment for the same. On the next day, FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 7 of 37 she talked to her husband regarding the documents relating to the treatment of his mental illness and she assured him that if he has any mental issue that can be sorted out and can be treated. Thereafter, he suddenly became violent and started shouting at her and started throwing things here and there. She somehow managed to calm him down. On the next day, they visited VIMHANS Hospital, Sriniwapuri, Delhi. There they met an expert psychiatrist namely Sanjay Patnayak. He advised him to take regular therapy from a good psychiatrist. He also referred him to AIIMS Hospital for further treatment, but her husband had not acted upon doctor's advice. Thereafter, her husband's behavior became very rude and aggressive. Also he started taking excessive liquor. He also used to take some sort of intoxicating drugs. Thereafter, one day she advised him to visit some marriage counselor as he was not willing to visit any psychiatrist. Initially, he rejected to visit the marriage councilor and finally accused agreed to visit there and consequently, she alongwith him visited the marriage councilor named Dr. Deepak Raheja who advised accused to go through some psychiatric councilor but he did not follow the above advice from Dr. Deepak Raheja. Then the behaviour of the accused did not change at all after her many efforts. Since beginning of the wedding day, his mother and father who were staying there with them, started asking for a car, which she did not reply. After 23 days, on 08.05.2011, accused told her that she had to use another toilet, which nobody was using. Right after her marriage, they were sleeping in different rooms. On some occasions when some visitor came to wish them, that was the first day she FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 8 of 37 had seen he was abusing them in front of everybody and when she tried to control him or calm him, he started abusing her too. Since then after she had noticed the change in his behaviour. He used to lose his tamper very easily. On some occasions also, he had beaten her too in front of the maid. Initially, she did not make complaint against the accused regarding the said behaviour thinking that she wanted to settle in matrimonial life. One day in the month of June 2011, she saw some medical papers of accused of Hope Foundation, for undergoing treatment of bipolar, multiple trait and split personality. Copy of the discharge summery and prescription for the abovesaid treatment was mark A and B. One day during the subsistence of her marriage, she did not remember the exact date or month, but it may be May or June, 2011, accused told her to go and ask to go her current employer, which was Naturance to bring an amount of Rs.1Lac to pay the household expenses. When she denied, accused abused her over the phone which she had recorded and accused also told her that she should ask her parents for some liquidated amount as he had to buy a car. The same conversation was also recorded and given to IO as recorded CD, which was Ex.PW1/C and she also given her marriage CD to the IO Ex.PW1/D. Her marriage photographs were now Ex.PW1/E. Her marriage card was Ex.PW1/F. She had also given list of stridhan, which were demanded by accused and his parents and she provided the same to them, list of stridhan was Ex.PW1/G. She had consulted his father and his family but no one helped her. On one occasion, somewhere in the last week of June, 2011, she discussed with him regarding the pending payments of rental house, FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 9 of 37 household items, electricity, water etc. but instead he denied to pay and tried to convince her that he would not work for another six months which he also mentioned her in her email that he would not continue his job and she had to bear all the said expenses. Accused was under habit of harassing her by abusing her parents and brother and make suspicion on her. On 10.07.2011 in the morning, accused started quarreling with her for demanding household expenses. When she denied to pay the same, accused started throwing all utensils and glasses and beating her by fist blows then she called at 100 number. Police came there but did not pay any heed saying her that it was only matrimonial issue and within one hour, accused packed his all belongings and left the house. Then she called her parents and they suggested her to come her parental home. Thereafter, she alongwith them went there. However, she came back in the evening time to see whether accused again came there or not but he did not come back and she opened the door and found that household articles were scattered. Thereafter, she opened her almirah and saw that her jewellery items i.e. gold necklace, fingers rings, one pair of earrings, silver jewellery, silver necklace and silver anklets, gold pendents were missing. Thereafter, she called at no.100 regarding the abovesaid theft in her rented house at Govindpuri, 1675 C5, Govindpuri Extension. She gave written complaint at Kalkaji PS and the same was Mark C. Thereafter, at numerous occasions, accused used to come her parental home and they had heated arguments. On one occasions, accused hit her also and then again she filed a written complaint at Kalkaji PS. Thereafter, FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 10 of 37 accused started visiting at the residence of cousins and all her previous offices to defame her saying that 'ki yeh dhanda karti hai'. At Nature Essence, Moksh Promotions Ltd. in Lajpat Nagar, Naturence he visited all the offices and defamed her that she was having numerous affairs including her real brother and father. He has completely drained her mental status by making a number of calls on her phone 9999652357 from his mobile phone and his friend's mobile phone wherein she registered case in Malviya Nagar, Hauz Khan, Mehrauli and copy of the complaints have been submitted to the IO, in which accused apologized (maafinama) on some complaints which was mark D. She had given photocopy of the marriage bill and bill of jewellery items from page 118 to 148, which were mark E. She had filed a written complaint against the accused for dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, abuses, which was Ex.PW1/H. In the proceedings before the CAW Cell, she submitted marriage card, bill, photographs of marriage, some copies of mails between her and accused, rent agreement, medical report of accused, vide memo Ex.PW1/I. During crossexamination, PW1 deposed that it was correct that after her matrimonial dispute, her husband filed a complaint before the Income tax department against her. It was also correct that the department requested her to file the response to the said complaint filed by her husband. Thereafter, the witness was shown her response, which she filed before the authority in April, 2013, which was brought by summoned witness Inspector Vivek from Income Tax Department to which, she replied that it was her FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 11 of 37 reply dated 04.06.2013 and the same were Ex.PW1/D1, Ex.PW1/D2 and Ex.PW1/D3. It was correct that accused Rahul had gone to the ship on 09.10.2010 and remained at the ship till the month of April 2011. It was wrong to suggest that during the aforesaid period she had used the debit card of the accused for purchasing house hold articles. She voluntarily stated that the aforesaid card was given by the accused to her and the sister of the accused which was used by them only once to purchase a lehanga. She had purchased the articles of dowry as mentioned by her in the list of dowry articles from the sale consideration received by her father after selling of his property at Sangam Vihar in year 2010. She had not given the documents pertaining to the aforesaid sale of property since she was not asked by the IO during investigation. It was correct that she had stated in her complaint ExPW1/H that the roka ceremony was performed in the house of the accused but the same was a typographical error and the same had taken place at her residence as stated by her in her examinationinchief. It was correct that she had got stated the fact regarding payment of Rs 10,000/ on two occasions to the younger brother of accused upon his instructions in her complaint, though she had stated so in her examinationinchief. Witness was confronted with the complaint ExPW1/H wherein the aforesaid fact was not recorded. It was correct that she had also not stated the fact regarding booking of tickets for accused to Hyderabad upon his insistence from her credit card in her complaint, though she had stated so in her examinationinchief. Witness was confronted with the complaint ExPW1/H wherein the aforesaid fact was not FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 12 of 37 recorded. It was correct that she had also not stated regarding the fact of the mother of accused asking her to arrange for a house at Delhi as stated by her in her examinationinchief though, she had not stated so in her complaint. Witness was confronted with the complaint ExPW1/H wherein the aforesaid fact was not recorded. It was correct that brother of accused namely Rohit had never asked her to arrange for a rented accommodation at Delhi. Witness was confronted with the complaint ExPW1/H wherein the aforesaid fact was not recorded. She did not know if she had mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW1/H regarding the fact of coming to know about the accused being the drug addict two days prior to her marriage, from the sister of the accused to her house. Witness was confronted with the complaint ExPW1/H wherein the aforesaid fact was not recorded. It was correct that the date of marriage was 06.05.2011 and not 06.05.2012. Upon being asked that they went to Shimla for their honeymoon, till then Rahul's mother and sister stayed at their rented house at Govind Puri Ext., Kalkaji, Delhi, the witness stated that before leaving for Shimla, they both shared their beds only for once but no sexual relationship happened between them. At Shimla, her husband Rahul also used to sleep separately and there she came to know that he has sexual issues with him. The witness was confronted with the complaint ExPW1/H wherein it was not so recorded. Again stated that they went for their honeymoon to Manali and not for Shimla. Upon being asked that she found one brief case of her husband which was opened and found certain medical reports relating to her husband which included one discharge summary from a mental asylum in FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 13 of 37 Saket relating to her husband, the witness stated that from that discharge report, she came to know that her husband got treated for his mental illness there for more than one year. It was only then, she came to know that she was misleaded by his family members regarding this fact as they hide this mental illness and his treatment for the same. On the next day, she talked to her husband regarding the documents relating to the treatment of his mental illness and she assured him that if he has any mental issue that can be sorted out and can be treated. Thereafter, accused suddenly became violent and started shouted at her and started throwing things here and there. Witness was confronted with complaint ExPW1/H where it was not recorded. Upon being asked that on the next day they visited Vimhans Hospital, Sriniwaspuri, Delhi, there they met an expert psychiatrist namely Sanjay Patnayak who advised the accused to take regular therapy from a good psychiatrist. Doctor also referred the accused to AIIMS Hospital for further treatment but her husband had not acted upon doctor's advice. Thereafter, her husband's behaviour became very rude and aggressive. Also he started taking excessive liquor. He also took some sort of intoxicating drugs. Thereafter, one day she advised him to visit some marriage counselor as he was not willing to visit any psychiatrist. Witness was confronted with complaint ExPW1/H where it was not recorded. The accused rejected to visit the marriage counsellor and finally accused agreed to visit there and consequently, she alongwith him visited the marriage counsellor namely Dr. Deepak Raheja who also advised accused to go through some psychiatric counsellor but he did not follow the FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 14 of 37 above advice from Dr. Deepak Raheja. Upon asking, witness stated that one day, in the month of June 2011, she saw some medical papers of accused of Hope foundation, for undergoing treatment of bipolar, multiple trait and split personality. Witness was confronted with the complaint ExPW1/H where it was not so recorded. It was correct that the incident had happened in May, June 2011 regarding the fact that accused told her to go and ask her current employer, Naturance to bring an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ to pay the household expenses and that when she denied, accused abused her over the phone, was not mentioned in her complaint ExPW1/H. It was correct that she did not mention in her complaint that accused was under habit of abusing her brother and making suspicious on her. It was correct that she did not mention in her first complaint which was ExPW1/H that accused started visiting the residence of her cousins and all her previous offices to defame her saying that "ki ye dhandha karti". She voluntarily stated that the aforesaid incident happened after making the first complaint ExPW1/H. She did not remember the exact date and month of the aforesaid behavior of accused who defame her in front of her cousin and her previous employer and colleague. However, it might be in the year 20122013. Upon being asked if she had lodged any complaint with the concerned police officials regarding the aforesaid behavior of accused to defame infront of colleague and cousin, witness stated that she did lodge the complaint in PS Kalkaji as well as in PS Malviya Nagar. Upon being asked if the said complaint was the part of the court record in the present case, upon which the witness could not say FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 15 of 37 anything. It was correct that on 10.07.2011, she called at 100 number and the concerned police officials visited the matrimonial home. The said police officials only talked to both of them and thereafter left without any documentation. She could not say nor remember that she told the concerned police officials that between her and the accused had arguments due to non payment of electricity bill of the matrimonial home. She did not have any idea regarding the fact that the electricity bill for the month of June was paid in the same month vide receipt dated 18.06.2011 as marked D1. She was not sure if the entire rent of the premises were already paid prior to 10.07.2011. She did not know as to why the police failed to take any action against the accused. Upon being asked, witness stated that it was incorrect that the police did not take any action as it was a misunderstanding between husband and wife regarding the alleged payment of the electricity bills. At the time of her Roka ceremony, she was employed in a company by the name of Naturence as HR Officer and was having salary of Rs.20,000/ per month. At that time her father was not working. Her father had stopped working due to his ill health, at that time she was aged about 12 years. At the time of marriage, they were three sisters and one brother. It was correct that at the time of her Roka ceremony, one of her sister and brother were already married. She was not sure if she was receiving her salary by cheque or cash. She was having a bank account at Kotak Mahindra Bank at GKII and one at IDBI Bank. Her salary whenever given to me was maintained in the accounts of the company where she was working. She could not say if she used to sign on any voucher FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 16 of 37 in lieu of receiving her salary in cash. She was not an income tax payee at the time of her Roka ceremony in year 2010. It was correct that the parents of the accused did not stay after performing the Roka ceremony as the same was preformed at her parental home. Her parents used to receive rent from there properties which were situated at Kalkaji and some rent from the property at Sangam Vihar. They were residing at property of Kalkaji which were having ground, first floor, second floor and roof. Some of the portions were rented out by her parents. The rental income from both the properties were approximately Rs.10,000/ to Rs. 15,000/ per month. She did not remember if she had filed her bank statements of her above mentioned two accounts. She could file the bank statements of her bank accounts, however, aforesaid bank accounts had already been closed by her. The entire documents pertaining to the expenses born by her and her family were given to the investigating officer but she could not say whether the same has been filed along with chargesheet by the IO. She was also having credit card at the time of her roka ceremony. The said credit card was surrendered by her during the year 20142015 which was of Kotak Mahindra Bank. Some of the expenses for roka, engagement and marriage expenses might had been paid through her credit card and the rest of the expenses were paid in cash by her mother. Her mother got receipts of the expenses born by her. The said receipt were also given to the IO. The Sangam Vihar property which was owned by her father was sold by her father to one of her cousins Sh. Khirot Bhuyan during the year 20102011. She did not hand over the same documents of the said FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 17 of 37 property to the IO. Thereafter, a prescription of doctor Meenakshi T. Sahu of Spectrum Medicare, Green Park, New Delhi was shown to the witness which she stated to be correct and the same was Ex.PW1/D1. She voluntarily stated that during her aforesaid visit with the accused, she had not told the doctor regarding any contraceptive. She voluntarily stated that some of the household goods were purchased by her husband and some of them were purchased by her mother. Her mother might had got the receipts of the purchases made by her in her possession. She voluntarily stated that they had handed over the same to the IO. She had purchased her jewelry from Lajpat Nagar at Dhir Sons Jewelers and also some silver jewelery from local jewelers of Tughlakabad and the receipt of the same were handed over to the IO. Prior to the complaint Ex.PW1/H, she had made complaints to PS Kalkaji. She had handed over the copy of the same to the IO. It was correct that her husband left the house after she called the police on 10.07.2011. She could not say if she had given any written complaint to the police on 10.07.2011. She was not at home at that night and was away to her parental home and to her knowledge, her husband had come to take his articles and thereafter, left the house. Thereafter, the copy of DD entry No. 17A, dated 10.07.2011 attached with the judicial file of 4.10 AM was shown to the witness. Upon seeing the same the witness submits that she has no knowledge regarding the aforesaid DD entry number. The document was marked DX1. Thereafter, the copy of bill pertaining to Kiran Jewelers dated 06.10.2010 attached with the judicial file was shown to the witness which was Mark E FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 18 of 37 (colly) which was Mark ED1. Upon seeing the same the witness submits that she had handed over the same to the IO and the original of the same was in her possession. The payments of the aforesaid jewelry were made in cash. She had gone to Manali for her honeymoon. Thereafter, photographs pertaining to the complainant total 14 in number were shown to the witness which she admits to be of the aforesaid visit to Manali and the same were Ex.PW1/D2 (colly). It was correct that after her husband left her, she had sold the household goods and shifted to her parental home since she did not have place to keep the same. She did not get herself examined to any medical doctor upon receiving violence from her husband since the date of marriage from May, 2011 till July, 2011. She had not informed her parents regarding the behaviour of the accused towards her during the aforesaid period elaborately. It was correct that the stridhan articles were given to her in her marriage by her parents. Witness denied all suggestions put to her.
PW2 Smt. Bilashi Bhuyan (mother of complainant) deposed that she had solemnized marriage of her daughter namely Sunita with Rahul Kesarwani in May 2011 but she did not remember the date. She provided rented premises to her daughter and her son in law in Govindpuri and used to pay the rent herself. Her daughter and son in law remained in that rented house only for 2 to 3 months. During their stay in that rented house, Rahul Kesarwani demanded a car from her daughter. He also beaten her daughter. She was not having car to give him. Thereafter, her daughter gave complaint to the police. She brought her daughter in her house but Rahul Kesarwani FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 19 of 37 used to abuse filthy language to her daughter on mobile phone. Her daughter used to keep the mobile phone on speaker mode and she also used to hear his abuses. One day, accused came to her house and beaten her daughter in her house. Accused also used to abuse her like "mai Randi hu". Accused did not return their jewellery which were given by them at the time of marriage. Thereafter, marriage card was shown to the witness which she correctly identified and the same was Ex.PW1/F. During crossexamination, PW2 deposed that it was correct that the accused had filed the petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her daughter after the filing of present case. It was correct that her daughter refused to go back with accused during the aforesaid proceeding. She told the police that her daughter used to keep her mobile phone on speaker mode and she also used to hear the abusive language used by accused to her daughter and one day accused came to her house and beaten her daughter in her house and he used to meet her daughter enroute and used to beat her and abuse her as "mai randi hu." Witness was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC Ex.PW2/D1, wherein it was not so recorded. It was correct that the accused started demanding for a car from her daughter from the month of July 2011. Even in her presence, accused demanded for the car from her daughter after month of July 2011. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
PW3 Suraj (brother of complainant) deposed that marriage of his sister was solemnized on 06.05.2011 with Rahul Kesarwani in community centre near LSR college, Kailash Colony. His sister and brother in law started FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 20 of 37 residing in rented house in Govindpuri. Rent of above said premises was being paid by them. After two months quarrel took place between his sister and brother in law and his sister came back to their house. His sister told him about quarrel and beating, to her mother. His brother in law started to reside in Saket somewhere and fled away alongwith jewellery which were given by them to him. He asked his sister about the reason of quarrel, she told him the reason that his brother in law used to demand for car. When his sister used to go to office he used to beat his sister enroute. Sometime he used to come in his house and beat his sister and also used to abuse his mother. Accused also used to abuse his sister and his mother on mobile phone. Thereafter, his sister lodged complaint to the police. Thereafter, marriage card was shown to the witness which he correctly identified and the same was Ex.PW1/F. During crossexamination, PW3 deposed that accused had left his house after two months of his marriage and started residing separately from the complainant. He did not remember the exact date when the accused left his house. He was not present at the said house on the said date. He did not remember if his mother was present at the house when the accused left. He was informed by his mother that his sister was being beaten and harassed by accused for fulfilling the demand of a car. He told the police that when his sister used to go to her office, accused used to beat her enroute and some time he used to come in his house and beat his sister/complainant and also abused his mother and sometime used to abuse his sister and his mother on mobile phone. Witness was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 21 of 37 CrPC Ex.PW/3D1, wherein it was not so recorded. Witness denied all the suggestions put to him.
PW4 Insp. Samarpal Singh deposed that on 06.07.2012, he was posted at PS Kalkaji. On that day, after registration of the FIR, the present case file was handed over to him for investigation. Thereafter, he visited the house of complainant namely Sumita Bhuyan and interrogated her regarding the incident and recorded her statement u/s 161 CrPC on 23.11.2012. He recorded the statement of complainant's sister u/s 161 CrPC. Thereafter, he called the alleged accused in the present case at the police station. Father of accused Rahul Kesarwani came at the police station and he interrogated him. Father of accused told him that he had only attended the marriage of accused and accused had solemnised love marriage against their wish. He called accused Rahul Kesarwani at the police station as he was already on anticipatory bail so, accused was formally arrested and thereafter, he released the accused and prepared arrest memo ExA4. During investigation, accused denied all allegations allegedly levelled against him and also told that he alongwith complainant resides in a rented accommodation and at the time of quarrel, he left all the articles at the said rented accommodation. After preparation of chargesheet, he filed the same before the court.
During crossexamination, PW4 deposed that it was correct that the complainant and accused being husband and wife used to stay in the tenanted premises at Govindpuri Extension. He had never visited the said tenanted premises. He did not investigate as to whether the articles were lying in the FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 22 of 37 said tenanted premises or not, as stated by the accused and voluntarily stated that complainant had already vacated the rented accommodation. After vacating the tenanted premises complainant started living with her parents at DDA Flat, Kalkaji. He had visited the said property during investigation of the present case. He did not find any article and the place where the complainant was staying, after the complainant vacated the tenanted premises. The complainant had not given him any documents to substantiate her allegations and voluntarily stated that the complainant had already given the documents to inquiry officer, CAW Cell. He received the entire bunch of documents from CAW Cell, which were part of the chargesheet. He did not remember that he had ever asked the complainant to furnish the bank account statement for the expenses incurred by her regarding the purchase of household goods. He did not demand the account statement of the bank account of any of the family members of the complainant during investigation. He did not know if the accused had left the tenanted premises alongwith articles or empty handed. He had verified the jewellery bills furnished by the complainant by sending a letter to M/s Kiran Jewellers dated 14.06.2013 and the same was Ex.PW4/A. He did not verify any other bill apart from the jewelery bill given to him by complainant. He did not know if any jewelery was purchased by the complainant in lieu of the aforesaid bills. During investigation, he had filed on record DD no.44A and 10A dated 10.07.2011 and upon verification came to know that since it was a quarrel between the complainant and the accused being their household matter and no FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 23 of 37 cognizable offence was made out, no investigation was carried out in this regard. He did not visit the place where the engagement and marriage ceremony of the complainant with accused had taken place. He did not take the voice sample of accused and send the said CD (Ex.PW1/C) to FSL. During investigation, he did not make inquiry from the maid or other persons in whose presence accused allegedly gave beatings to the complainant and abused her. He did not know if any electricity and water bill due at the rented premises. He never visited the work place of the complainant. The witness was being confronted with the list of istridhan articles and witness stated that apart from the four jewelery bills pertaining to M/s Kiran jewelers, none of the articles as mentioned in list of istridhan articles were verified from the concerned shopkeeper. He did not verify the discharge summary of the accused from Hope Foundation which was mark A. He did not record the statement of any independent witness of neighborer residing near the tenanted house of the complainant to verify whether the accused had treated the complainant with cruelty for not bringing adequate dowry or to meet the demand of dowry of the accused.
PW5 Sanjeev Jain (from Kiran Jewellers) deposed that he was a summoned witness in the present matter. He was the proprietor of Kiran Jewellers which was situated at the aforesaid address. The aforesaid shop had been run by him on the aforesaid address for past 25 years. He had not brought any document pertaining to the proprietorship of the aforesaid shop. Thereafter, witness was shown document mark E/D1 (colly 16) dated FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 24 of 37 06.10.2010, 16.09.2010, 27.10.2010, 02.11.2010, 04.03.2011, 23.04.2011 upon which he submits that the aforesaid documents (photocopy) were of his shop. He further submits that all the aforesaid documents were only estimates and no article/jewellery had been delivered from his shop. The aforesaid bills were not in his handwriting and perhaps in the handwriting of his younger brother or some other employee. He did not have the original of the aforesaid estimates/documents in his possession as they were only rough estimates and not the bills.
During crossexamination, PW5 deposed that upon being shown a certified copy of reply filed by him through his lawyer regarding the aforesaid estimates of bill in the department of Trade and Taxes in the year 2014. The witness upon seeing the document admitted it to be correct. The same was Ex.PW5/D1. The same was filed upon his instructions by his lawyer. It was correct that the rough estimates do not require any signature as they were not bills.
Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 294 CrPC and copy of FIR was Ex.A1, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act was Ex.A2, rukka was Ex.A3 and arrest memo was Ex.A4.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 25 of 37
6. Accused examined one witness in his defence.
DW1 Sh. Biju George Junior Associate, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Deposed that he had brought the record of electricity bills and payments of property bearing No.1675/5, Govindpuri, New Delhi for the period from June, 2011 to October, 2011 alongwith record of payment of electricity bill from June, 2011 to December, 2014. He had also brought duly certified copy of the said record and the same was Ex.DW1/A running into four pages.
During crossexamination DW1 deposed that he had been authorised by Sh. Sundara Pandiyan.R, Business Manager, Alaknanda to appear before the court and to file copy of printout of the electricity bills.
7. Defence evidence was closed and final arguments were heard.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter, all the witnesses have deposed in corroboration with each other and there is no contradiction in the statement of witnesses. It is further argued that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted.
9. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that in the present matter accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant only due to the reason that the relation between the complainant and the accused had become sour. It is argued that both the parties got married to each other FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 26 of 37 on 06.05.2011 and lived with each other till 10.07.2011 and therefore, cohabited together only for a period of two months. It is further argued that during the aforesaid period of two months, complainant was treated with extreme love and affection by the accused and he had taken good care of her, however, complainant being of quarrelsome nature did not adjust with the accused. It is further argued that the complainant chose to file the present complaint on 20.01.2012 after a lapse of almost five months of her being separated from the accused. It is further argued that the averments made by the complainant in her complaint Ex.PW1/A are also false and are not substantiated by her by leading any cogent evidence or any document. It is further argued that the complainant has made false claims in her complaint which are contradicted during her crossexamination and further are not deposed by the complainant during her examination in chief recorded before the court. It is further argued that in the present matter, complainant even made allegations against the parents of the accused that is when it came into investigation that the parents of the accused came only to attend the marriage of the accused and left Delhi soon thereafter. It is also argued that the contents of the complaint are contradictory in itself and do not inspire confidence. It is further argued that there are several contradictions in the testimony of complainant being PW1 and her mother being examined as PW2 and her brother who was examined as PW3. It is further argued that the veracity of the complainant is doubtful as she has been confronted on several aspects during her crossexamination and the accused has successfully shaken FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 27 of 37 the credibility of the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant had stated during her examination in chief that on 10.07.2011 there was a quarrel between the complainant and the accused regarding nonpayment of the electricity bill due to which accused left the premises, however, the same is contradicted by DW1 who had brought on record the payment of the electricity bill pertaining to the rented premises which was paid much prior to the alleged quarrel of 10.07.2011. It is further argued that the complainant has alleged to have made a call at 100 number upon which the police officials reached the spot but the same has come on record that the police officials did not initiate any proceedings against the accused since no such incident as alleged by the complainant had taken place and therefore, they left the spot by terming it to be a domestic quarrel. It is also argued that the complainant has alleged that during the marriage ceremony, her family members had given her expensive gifts and several household articles which were kept at the tenanted premises and at the same time, she has admitted during her crossexamination that when the accused left the premises on 10.07.2011, he left all the household articles and PW1 (complainant) has admitted during her cross examination that the same were in her possession and were sold by her subsequently. It is further argued that the complainant lived with the accused only for a period of two months and at that time, accused and complainant went for a honeymoon wherein the photographs relied upon by the accused showed that the complainant is happy in the company of accused. Further the same are admitted by the complainant to be the photographs of honeymoon. It FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 28 of 37 is also argued that the complainant has stated several contradicted statements during her examination in chief recorded before the court as the complainant has stated during her testimony that an amount of Rs.1 lakh was demanded by the accused from the complainant which she was directed to be brought from her employer but during her complaint, the complainant has stated that the amount of Rs.1 lakh was demanded by the accused from the complainant to have being brought from the mother of complainant. It is also argued that the complainant has stated in her complaint Ex.PW1/H that the roka ceremony was performed at the parental house of the accused however, in her testimony has stated that the same was performed at the parental house of the complainant which are contradictory and therefore, the witness is not reliable. It is also argued that the IO has not conducted the investigation in fair and proper manner which is revealed from the crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused and the IO had chargesheeted the accused without any material available against him. It is also argued that the reply given by the complainant to the income tax department regarding the source of income during the year 2011/2012 complainant has categorically stated that she did not have the said amount allegedly spent during her marriage and has also admitted that her father was not working 12 years prior to her marriage. It is also admitted by the complainant that she did not place on record any documents pertaining to the expenditure incurred in marriage. It is also argued that the complainant has stated that the jewellery was purchased from Dhir Sons jewellers but the complainant failed to place on record any bills of FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 29 of 37 the aforesaid jeweler and infact the bills placed on record of Kiran Jewelers are also only estimates and PW5 has already deposed that the bills annexed with record were actually not the receipts but only estimates and further no article or jewelery was ever purchased or delivered in lieu of the aforesaid estimates, which itself shows that the complainant has deposed falsely against the accused. It is further argued that the allegations of the complainant regarding demand of car one day prior to the marriage by the mother of the accused is not substantiated by PW2 and PW3 and the same is not deposed by the aforesaid witnesses. It is also argued that PW2 and PW3 are only hearsay witnesses and had never witnessed any such alleged acts of cruelty upon the complainant by the accused at any point of time. It is further argued that the accused is liable to be acquitted as no incriminating evidence has come on record against him.
10. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
Observations qua offence u/s 498A IPC :
(i) The case of the prosecution rests on the assertion that during almost two months of the marriage between the parties, complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of failure by her to meet unlawful demands of dowry raised by the accused. It is admitted that the marriage FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 30 of 37 between the parties were solemnized on 06.05.2011 and thereafter, she remained in her matrimonial house (rented accommodation) with the accused till 10.07.2011 i.e. she remained in cohabitation with the accused only for a period of two months. Accused has denied these allegations and raised manifold defences.
(ii) It is the foremost defence of the accused that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its allegations of cruelty of any nature upon the complainant by the accused. As per complaint Ex. PW1/H dated 20.01.2012 parties got married on 06.05.2011 in Delhi. The allegations in the aforesaid complaint have not been reiterated in the testimony of complainant as PW1. It has also come in evidence in the testimony of PW1 that she was in constant touch with her family after her marriage. However, PW2 and PW3 being the mother and brother of the complainant have stated that the complainant was treated with cruelty but none of the incidents of alleged cruelty ever took place in their presence. Moreso, none of the aforesaid witnesses had ever made any complaint against the accused upon receiving intimation from the complainant regarding the fact of alleged cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused, to any of the authority or police officials at any point of time.
(iii) It has been stated by the complainant in Ex. PW1/H though not reiterated by her as PW1, that she was tortured and demanded dowry from the very beginning of the marriage by the parents of the accused and taunted her for FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 31 of 37 not bringing the same, but it is also admitted by the complainant that on the very second day of her marriage, she alongwith accused went for her honeymoon to Manali. The pictures of the honeymoon relied upon by the accused which are exhibited PW1/D2 do not show that the complainant was ill treated by the accused. Further, the complainant has alleged that the accused was having medical problems due to which they had consulted a gynae and the document relied upon by the accused Ex.PW1/D1 does not mention any such report of the consulting doctor. Further, document mark D1 which is the payment receipt pertaining to the payment of electricity bill dated 18.06.2011 also shows that the accused had made the payment of electricity bill prior to the alleged quarrel between the complainant and accused on 10.07.2011 and therefore, the allegations of the complainant that accused had picked up a quarrel with her on 10.07.2011 due to the reason of nonpayment of electricity and water bill is also not corroborated. Further the complainant had alleged that on the aforesaid date, accused had demanded money from the complainant for aforesaid payments is also not corroborated in view of document Ex.DW1/A by the accused. Further the allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that several expensive gifts were given in the marriage and exorbitant amount was spent by her is also not corroborated in view of the reply admittedly given by the complainant to the income tax notice received by her Ex.PW1/D1, Ex.PW1/D2 and Ex.PW1/D3 wherein the complainant has admitted to have replied in para 3 that "this to again submit that the in the year 20102011 I was working with the private limited FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 32 of 37 company where I was earning less than tax slab, hence, I was not required to file for ITR" and in para 4 "I got married to Mr. Rahul Kesarwani s/o Mr. Swadesh Kesarwani, so I left the job and I started my marital life, I worked with Naturance Research Labs Pvt. Ltd. For only two months after my marriage, so there was no separate income of mine after marriage, but yes, my husband does lots of expense in the year 2011 to 2013" and therefore, the same does not reflect that such amount was spent in her marriage.
Complainant has further admitted of not making any complaint before any authority apart from her complaint before CAW cell on 20.01.2012. Credibility of such an allegation is also dubious for the reason that there is not even any averment made by the complainant against the accused of having committed cruelty for demand of dowry which could lead the complainant to commit suicide.
(iv) It has been asserted by the complainant in Ex. PW1/H that "after few days of her marriage" accused and his family members started demanding dowry which the complainant showed her incapacity to pay. To the contrary as PW1, complainant vaguely stated that accused demanded money and a car from her. There is no specification of the amount of cash demanded by the accused or his family members after few days of marriage or even the amount paid by the complainant to the accused in fulfillment of any of his demand. The allegation of demand are unspecified and also obscure. As such, the allegations of demand of dowry by the accused lack credence.
FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 33 of 37
(v) Further as per complaint Ex.PW1/H there is no specification of the manner in which the complainant was mentally or physically harassed by the accused or his family. The complaint as well as testimony of PW1 is silent on the specific date, month, year, event or occasion of any beating given to the complainant by the accused or the manner of such beating i.e. slapping, kicking, keeping her without food for days etc. Admittedly, the complainant did not lodge any complaint regarding any such alleged beating or harassment prior to the present complainant and are, therefore ambiguous and vague.
(vi) It has also been alleged by PW1 that the behavior of accused was callous and indifferent to her however it has not been elaborately clarified as to how did PW1 infer the behavior of accused to be callous or found him to be indifferent. However there is neither any averment nor any piece of evidence in the form of a medical report or otherwise, to draw a logical inference of such a threat to be of a nature likely to have driven the complainant to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life limp or health. In absence of any assertion to this effect, it cannot be assumed that such a threat or alleged callous or indifferent behavior of the accused was with a view to coercing her to meet any demand for property or valuable security or on account of her failure to meet such demand. Reliance is placed upon decision in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State & Ors. Crl. M.C. No. 264553/2005 decided on 12.10.2007 wherein following observation was made : FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 34 of 37 ".....Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
Explanation (b) to Section 498A provides that cruelty means 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.
Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the Section...."
(vii) Similar view was adopted in the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 35 of 37 demands. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 observed that offence U/s 498A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry. Further, while interpreting the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that harassment of constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the call will fall beyond the scope of Section498A IPC.
(viii) It has also come in evidence, during cross examination of PW1, that the complainant was in constant touch with her family members. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have corroborated the story of the complainant and out of three public witnessed examined on behalf of the prosecution, PW2 and PW3 are only hearsay and interested witnesses. In such an eventuality, veracity of allegations of cruelty appear to be in doubt. Further, Ex. PW1/H and list of dowry articles Ex.PW1/G and the photographs of the marriage or the marriage card does not reveal anything of the sort of marriage to have been ostentatiously displayed.
(ix) Even the allegations that the accused used to gave beatings to the complainant have not been corroborated by any reliable piece of evidence.
FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 36 of 37 There are discrepant statements regarding the allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the complainant are discrepant and devoid of specific details and as such does not inspire confidence of the court.
(x) Also, there is no evidence such as a medical report, photograph or otherwise to prove any physical injury to the complainant which she would have received had she been assaulted.
(xi) Further, during cross examination PW1 has stated that accused demanded Rs.1 lakh from the complainant however, she has not proved the same by any cogent evidence. Further, again, this averment is not corroborated by any independent witness such as mother and brother of complainant or any documentary proof of such handing over of cash to the accused or even the exact date, month, year or occasion of such handing over of money. As such there is no convincing evidence on record to believe the allegations of the prosecution regarding commission of offence u/s 498A IPC. Accused Rahul Kesarwani is accordingly acquitted of offence U/s 498A IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
On 14.05.2019 Metropolitan Magistrate,
by SHEETAL (Mahila Court02), SouthEast,
Digitally signed
SHEETAL
CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY
PRADHAN Saket, New Delhi.
PRADHAN Date:
2019.05.15
14:26:56 +0530
FIR No.198/2012; PS Kalkaji State Vs. Rahul Kesarwani 37 of 37