Delhi District Court
In State Of Maharashtra And Others vs . Som Nath Thapa on 5 March, 2015
In The Court of Ms. Shefali Barnana Tandon, MM, North West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky
FIR No.577/03
PS :Model Town
U/s 498A/420/494 IPC
05.03.2015
ORDER ON CHARGE In the present case, accused Charanjeet Singh has been charge sheeted for the commission of offence U/s 498A/420/494 IPC by the PS Model Town on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant Mrs. Oshima Shinobu.
Accused Charanjeet Singh is the husband of complainant.
Arguments on point of charge heard at length on behalf of State by Ld.APP as well as by Ld.Defence Counsel.
During course of arguments Ld.APP has submitted that there are serious allegations against the accused for all the offences charge sheeted, whereas Ld.Defence Counsel has argued that in money transactions Section 406 IPC is not attracted and for commission of offence U/s 420 IPC initial fraudulent intention is required, which cannot be inferred in the present case. Ld.Defence Counsel has further argued that for commission of offence U/s 498A IPC no specific allegations has been levied against the accused and mere demand of house has been alleged. It has been further argued by Ld.Defence Counsel that there are only mere allegations for commission of offence U/s 494 IPC and FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 1 of 9 there is nothing on record to prove the same and lastly it is argued that the sanction given the present matter is a mechanical order.
Written arguments on behalf of accused has also been filed on record along with various judgments I.e, Phoolwati V. State, Saroop Chand V. State, Anil Mahajan V. Bhor Industries, Vadival V. Bagialakshmi and Adambhai V. State.
Heard. Entire record perused.
The marriage between complainant and accused has not been disputed.
Written arguments for commission of offence U/s 406/323 IPC have been filed, though cognizance for the said offences has been declined by the Court vide order dated 29.10.2004.
In her complaint, it has been stated by the complainant that she is the Japanese citizen and first time came to India to explore the Indian place under the tourist visa on dated 29.11.2000. During the said tours she came in the contact of accused Charanjeet Singh and intimacy between her and accused became extended to a good friendship and thereafter, accused Charanjeet Singh invited her to India for next time and also invited to visit and stay at his home at house no. 190, Old Gupta Colony, Vijay Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, she again visited India in Feb,2001.
It has been alleged by the complainant that accused Charanjeet visited Japan on tourist visa and stayed with her at her home and remained there in Japan for the period from May,2001 to 18th July 2001. Accused Charanjeet Singh did not spent money FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 2 of 9 as he stated to her that he is very poor and there is shortage of jobs in India and he is not having sufficient money with him, and therefore, lot of money was spent on Charanjeet by her. She further alleged that before leaving Japan she gave him 80,000/ Yen cash through Mitsubishi Bank for air tickets to return to Japan to marry her, as accused Charanjeet stated that he is in love with her and wanted to marry her.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that she got married to accused Charanjeet on 18.01.2002, according to Law of Japan and the Japanese authorities issued them a certificate of marriage duly signed and authorized them as husband and wife, according to Law of Japan.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that accused Charanjeet took some more money from her by saying that she is going to be his wife and she must have faith in him for her money and property, and on this faith he took money from her and by assuring to return whenever she requires.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that during the period accused Charanjeet stayed with her as her husband in Japan, he demanded money all the time and on every occasion. She does not know what he did with that, but all time he promised her to return her money and referred that he is her husband then she must trust on him for his money. It is further alleged that in the month of Feb, 2003, accused Charanjeet came back to India alone and on 29th March 2003 he returned to Japan but before leaving Japan in Feb 2003, he received 90,000 Yen to FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 3 of 9 1,00,000 Yen from her by impersonating that she is his love,and if she wants him to return to Japan then she has to give him the said money and he assured to return the money later. She also faced threatening of Charanjeet and under compulsion and threat she paid the said amount to Charanjeet and he also stated that they are husband and wife and if they are husband and wife then there is equal duty of her and Charanjeet towards the family of Charanjeet and in this way he made her to pay money.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that accused Charanjeet always used his influence as husband and she entrusted her money to him, on which he always had dominion and spent money in his own way without her knowledge and induced and deceived her and took money from her fraudulently by showing and referring his relation with her. Whatever money he had from her was her absolute assets which she earned by doing hard work.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that in the month of April, 2003, accused Charanjeet came to India from Japan on the pretext that he is feeling lonely and for some time he wants to go to India to meet his mother and father. This time before going back to India he borrowed 50,000 Yen through bank transfer from one of their common Japanese friend by saying that he is not having sufficient money for air tickets. When she came to know about this she asked him to return the money of that person, on this he promised her that he would return the money to that person but he did not return the same to that person.
FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 4 of 9 Moreover he took money for air ticket and other expenses from her also with the promise to return. Since that day he never returned to Japan but he was in touch with her through phone and he always promised her to come back. On 7th May 2003, when she came to India, she came to know about the fact that Charanjeet has fraudulently done second marriage with one Indian lady namely Teemi R/o G27/3A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, during 26th April to 29th April, 2003. Accused Charanjeet solemnized the said marriage with Teemi at Gurdwara.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that on 24th when the second wife of Charanjeet had gone to her parents house at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, she stayed with Charanjeet at his residence at House no. 190, old Gupta Colony, Vijay Nagar, New Delhi and continued stay with him as husband and wife. During that time Charanjeet, his father and his mother said to her that they are very poor and have no residential house or shop and also said that he will make her a partner in that shop and asked money for that. In this regard she delivered some money to Charanjeet and his parents. Charanjeet also said that he would come to Japan for 6 months every year and stay with her and remaining 6 months he will stay in India with his second wife, but she denied to leave Indian without Charanjeet. On this Charanjeet threatened her and gave indiscriminate beating at his home and also threatened to put Marijuana (Ganja or Affeem) in her bag to entangle in criminal case and immediately at the same moment Charanjeet made a phone call to one of his friend to bring FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 5 of 9 Marijuana . She became afraid with the threatening of Charanjeet and left India.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that She again came to India to get back Charanjeet and her money but she failed and this time in the month of July, 2003 he beat her and hold her neck by his hand and pressed with force to kill her but next moment he removed his hand and forcibly she left India.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that she came to India in July, 2003, and this time she asked to return money and expenses done on him during his stay in Japan then accused again threatened her and snatched some more money from her pocket and pushed her towards wall.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that Charanjeet and his other family member every time demanded money and stated that in Indian marriage there is tradition of dowry and the girl at the time of marriage bring dowry for her inlaws without this there is no valid marriage and in view of this they always demanded money from her and she always gave them money and in last when she was in India in the month of May 2003 they stated that for the purpose to purchase new home and shop for Charanjeet she has to give money as always girl bring money for her husband and his family members whenever they require. They always kept her under constant threat to kill. In the month of Feb 2001, when she came to India and stayed at Charanjeet's home they together encouraged her FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 6 of 9 to be the wife of Charanjeet as they wanted to grab money and other valuable gifts from her and together hatched conspiracy to commit crime against her.
It is further alleged by the complainant that Charanjeet fraudulently with the intention to cheat her took lot of money from her at Japan as well as in India and by showing influence as husband of her and had grabbed her hard earned money by way of cheating her and the money to which she entrusted him as her husband has been misappropriated dishonestly. Charanjeet and his mother and father has cheated her and Charanjeet breached her trust under the impression and relationship as her husband and has taken money and disposed off, used it and converted it his own use.
It is further alleged by the complainant that Charanjeet has caused mental and physical cruelty to her. He also committed bigamy by doing second marriage with another women in India despite of having earlier living wife and during the life time of his first wife. It has been further stated that both of them belongs to monogamous communities both in Japan and also in India, the first marriage with her was legal marriage according to Japan Law and said marriage is also recognized as legal marriage in India according to law of India and second marriage during the life time of first wife is punishable in India and also in Japan.
It has been further stated by the complainant that at the time of marriage, she gave him some other articles like FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 7 of 9 watches, gold bracelet, rings, shoes, clothes, perfumes, whiskey, belt, sunglasses etc and now he is having all the things with him.
Now coming to the law point, reliance has been placed by this Court on the following judgments :
In State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Som Nath Thapa and others, a three judge Bench stated thus:
"if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
In State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni , Apex Court, referring to several previous decisions held that the crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
The judgments relied by the Ld.Defence Counsel are not on point of charge.
There are specific allegations against the accused qua "cruelty" committed upon the complainant to come under the purview of Section 498A IPC. There are also specific allegations FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 8 of 9 against the accused for commission of offence U/s 420 IPC.
But there are only bald allegations against the accused for commission of offence U/s 494 IPC as there is not sufficient material on record for the same. Hence, the accused Charanjeet is discharged for commission of offence U/s 494 IPC.
In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie, there is a sufficient material to frame charge U/s 498A/420 IPC against the accused Charanjeet Singh (being the husband).
Be put up for framing of charge on 25.06.2015. Announced and dictated in the open Court today i.e. on 05.03.2015 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) MM, Mahila Court, NorthWest Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No.577/03 State V. Charanjeet Singh @ Vicky Page No 9 of 9