Delhi District Court
Smt. Ambika Saddana vs Smt. Harbans Kaur Siddana (Deceased) on 20 May, 2010
THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE03, NORTH, DELHI.
Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009
FIR No.277/98
U/s: 498A/406/379/380/506 IPC
P.S.: Prasad Nagar
Concerned/Successor Court:
Ms. Twinkle Wadhwa, MM, Delhi
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt. Ambika Saddana
W/o late Sh.Gurcharan Singh Siddana
R/o 16B/22 (G.F.), Dev Nagar,
New Delhi.
........ Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Harbans Kaur Siddana (deceased)
W/o late Sardar Sobha Singh Siddana
R/o 16B/23, Dev Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Smt. Joginder Kaur
D/o late Sh. Sobha Singh
R/o 16B/22(F.F.), Dev Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Maninder Pal Kaur Saluja
W/o late Sh. Parduman Singh Saluja
R/o 16B/23, Dev Nagar,
New Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 1/10
4. Harpreet (Boby Suri)
W/o Sh. Soni Suri
D/o Smt. Maninder Pal Kaur Saluja
R/o D27, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi.
.........Respondents
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Ld. MM whereby the Ld. MM discharged the respondents in case FIR No.277/98 Police Station Prasad Nagar u/s 498A/406/379/380/506 IPC.
2. Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that petitioner filed a complaint alongwith application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. against the respondents for the offence u/s 498A/406/379/380/506 IPC. On the said complaint, case u/s 498A/406/379/380/506 IPC was registered against the respondents. After registration of the case, investigation was marked to SI S.R. Meena. It is stated in the complaint that complainant Smt. Amibka Saddana was married to late Sh. Gurcharan Singh Siddana on 21.12.1984 and out of this wedlock one daughter and two sons namely Harmeet Kaur aged about 12 years, Gurvinder Singh aged about 11 years and Bhavdeep Singh were born out. After marriage the complainant started living in her matrimonial home at 16B/23, Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 2/10 Dev Nagar, Delhi alongwith her inlaws. Husband of her sister in law Smt. Maninder Pal died in March, 1985 and after the death of her husband, her sister in law also started living in complainant's matrimonial home alongwith her three children. Her other sister in law Smt. Joginder Kaur is a divorcee and she is also residing with complainant since 198586. It is stated that marriage of the complainant was performed with pump and show by her parents. Her husband was doing the business of Hindustan Leather Export and he used to come at late hours. After sometime some difference arose between her and her mother in law and sister in laws. The complainant was not allowed to meet her husband and to prepare food for her husband. The complainant remained in depression. She was also not allowed to talk with her parents, relatives whenever they made a call to her. Thereafter the complainant and her husband started living in 16B/22, Dev Nagar, Delhi but the interference of her mother in law and sister in laws was going on. Her husband had given some share to his sisters, mother, wife and children. Her husband died on 03.05.96 but after his death, whole business of her husband was taken over by motherlaw of complainant. Thereafter the complainant went to her parents' house at Ashok Vihar, Delhi. After completion of investigation challan was filed in the court.
3. After filing of challan, accused persons/respondents were summoned. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 3/10 MM discharged the accused persons/respondents vide order dated 19.8.2009 in case FIR No.277/98 Police Station Prasad Nagar u/s 498A/406/379/380/506 IPC and it is against this order that the present revision has filed the petitioner.
4. After filing of the revision petition, notice was issued to the respondents and Trial court record was summoned.
5. I have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to see the prima facie case whereas from the bare perusal of the order of trial court, it is clear that trial court has also evaluated the evidence on record. He further argued that it is the case of the complainant also that it was only after the death of her husband she was harassed and, therefore, the complaint has been filed after about 14 years of marriage. He further argued that merely because the civil litigation is pending between the parties is no ground to discharge the accused persons in the criminal case.
7. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondents argued that the order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. He further argued that the present complaint has been filed after 14 years that too only after the death of the husband of the complainant. He argued that the present complaint is nothing but only a Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 4/10 pressure tactic to put pressure on the respondents to accede the demands of the complainant.
8. Section 498A of IPC reads as under:
Sec.498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Section 406 of IPC reads as under:
Sec.406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 5/10
9. It is an admitted case that the marriage between the petitioner with the son of the respondent no.1 solemnized on 21.12.1984 and out of the wedlock three children were born. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant alongwith her husband got separated from the respondents in the year 1992 before the death of her husband in the year 1996. The present complaint has been filed in the year 1998 i.e. 14 years after the marriage and about 2 years after the death of the husband. Ld. MM has rightly held that for the last 14 years after her marriage, the complainant has not made any complaint against the respondents. Perusal of the record shows that in her statements given by the complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the IO as well as in her complaint, the complainant has cited many incidents during those 14 years i.e. after her marriage but no reason has been shown as to why for the last 14 years the complainant kept mum and did not make any complaint to anybody but suddenly in the year 1998 she remembered all the incidents of last 14 years or the cruelties committed by the respondents upon her and made a complaint. Her complaint after such belated stage can only be taken as an afterthought story. The complainant has further stated that she was also made to sign certain papers after the death of her husband in the year 1996. But mere signing of the papers neither can lead to any harassment on account of dowry demand nor itself covers the ingredients of section 406 of IPC. Perusal of whole Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 6/10 complaint shows that neither there are any ingredient of entrustment of any article belonging to the complainant nor misappropriation of the same by the respondents, neither any demand of dowry on behalf of the respondents nor any harassment by them for non fulfilling of their demands of dowry. Ld. MM has rightly held that from bare perusal of record it is clear that after the death of the husband of the complainant, the dispute arose between the parties regarding the property and the control of the business of the husband of the complainant. Admittedly, civil litigation regarding the same is also pending between the parties. It seems that present complaint has also been filed by the complainant only to use the court as a forum to put pressure on the other party or to blackmail the respondents. Ld. MM has rightly held that there are several allegations pertaining to the time parties were residing together but the same has been put before the court only after the institution of various litigations between the parties. It seems that section 498 A/406 IPC has been used by the complainant to blackmail her in laws and to put pressure upon them regarding the property dispute between them.
10. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon MANU/AP/0561/2006 titled as Chancharapu Madhusudhan Reddy vs. State of AP and Anr., AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2018 titled as State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 7/10 167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 812 tilted as Sonu & Ors. vs. State and 2008 (2) JCC 838 titled as Niranjan Kumar vs. State. No doubt at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to go into the evidence so minutely as is required to be done at the time of final arguments and the present case is also no exception to this rule. But at the same time, the court cannot become the mouth piece for the complainant. All the avernment made by the complainant in her complaint cannot be taken up as a gospel truth by the court and court cannot act mechanically on the same. Before putting any person on criminal trial, the court is required to see whether the prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. Suddenly, after 14 years, the complainant has woken up and has raised all type of allegations against the respondents alleging dowry demand and misappropriation against her in laws, then she is duty bound to explain the delay. Nobody can expect the court to act mechanically and the complaint of the complainant cannot be taken as gospel truth by the court.
11. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on AIR 1985 Supreme Court 628 titled as Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar and another. It is true that the stridhan of the wife is the wife's property, husband and in laws being trustees of the same are bound to return the same but there must be some entrustment of the same. Ld. MM has rightly held that all allegations made by the Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 8/10 complainant are pertaining to the fact that after the death of her husband, all the property of her husband has been illegally taken over by the respondents and the complainant was not allowed to have control over the business and, therefore, such dispute does not fall within the purview of section 498A/406 IPC. The complainant has further stated that her almirah were plundered by the accused persons but again there is neither any particulars nor any complaint has been made to any concerned police station. The allegations are quite vague and general in nature. In the complaint it has been further mentioned that accused did not allow her and her children to use any of the cars though her late husband had twelve vehicles. Again in the same para 19 of her complaint, she has stated that she had been given one car by the accused persons and her children has also been given pocket money and school expenses.
12. Bare perusal of whole complaint shows that all the allegations though relate to prior to death of husband of complainant but are made after the death of the husband of the complainant and that too also not for the harassment on account of dowry demand. Ld. MM has rightly held that neither the offence u/s 379/380 IPC is made out against the respondents nor there are allegations pertaining to section 506 IPC. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated passed by ld. MM.
13. In view of above said discussion, the order dated Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 9/10 19.8.2009 passed by ld. MM is upheld. Revision petition filed by the petitioner is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Trial court record alongwith copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(MADHU JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge3 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 20.5.2010. Crl. Rev. No.: 117/2009 10/10