Delhi District Court
Ms. Sweety vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02 : SOUTHEAST
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
IN RE:
CR No. 204217/16 ID No. DLSE010005472016
Ms. Sweety
D/o Mrs. Kamlesh Manchanda
R/o 8A/18G, W.E.A. Karol Bagh
New Delhi .... Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Through its Secretary
New Sectriate Building
ITO New Delhi
2. Mrs. Shobha Sachdeva
W/o Shri Rajesh Sachdeva
R/o E222, G. K. II
New Delhi. .... Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.03.2016
Date of arguments : 23.10.2017
Date of Judgment
:
11.12.2017
JUDGMENT
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the criminal revision petition CR No. 204217/2016 1 of 8 u/s 397 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by Ms. Charu Gupta, learned MM, SouthEast District in FIR No. 1028/2014 PS Amar Colony under section 498A/406/34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"). This revision petition has been preferred by the complainant Ms. Sweety feeling aggrieved with the order and thereby making a prayer that order dated 30.11.2015 be set aside and Ms. Shobha Sachdeva be also arrayed as an accused in the case. The State however has not challenged the order passed by learned MM.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint made by Ms. Sweety, FIR No. 1028/2014 PS Amar Colony was registered for the offence under section 498A/406/34 IPC. After the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the case. The accused Rajesh Kapoor was chargesheeted for the offence under section 498A, 406, 342 and 174A IPC. The section 174A IPC was incorporated in the chargesheet against Rajesh Kapoor on the ground that he could not be apprehended during the investigation. The chargesheet was filed for the offence under section 406/342 IPC against Ms. Neelam, sister of Rajesh Kapoor and sisterinlaw (nanad) of complainant Sweety. The chargesheet was field against Ms. Shobha Sachdeva, sister of Rajesh Kapoor and sisterinlaw (nanad) of complainant Sweety for the offence under section 406 IPC. After the chargesheet was filed, a protest petition was also filed by the complainant CR No. 204217/2016 2 of 8 which was however not pressed as is reflected from the order sheet dated 30.11.2015. On the said date, the trial court passed an order of taking cognizance of the offences and thereafter a detailed order was passed qua Ms. Shobha Sachdeva, who was chargesheeted for the offence under section 406 IPC. The learned MM after going through the record observed that no prima facie case is made out for the offence under section 498A IPC or 406 IPC against Ms. Shobha Sachdeva. The learned MM referred to the list of items of stridhan which were alleged to have been given to the complainant and now alleged to be in possession of the accused Rajesh Kapoor, Neelam and Shobha Sachdeva. It was stated that out of this list containing 23 items, only the items at serial no. 7 pertains to the accused Shobha which refer to five silver cards each having weight of 10 gms given to Rajesh Kapoor's family including his elder sister Shobha Sachdeva and her husband and his younger sister Neelam. The learned MM relied upon the judgment in Jagdamba Prasad Vs. State AIR 1957 Cr LJ 179, wherein the term "entrusted" has been defined and learned MM observed that in view of the judgment in Jagdamba Prasad's case there is no "entrustment" of any stridhan to Ms. Shobha Sachdeva in this case rather it was observed that the gift presented to Ms. Shobha cannot be termed as stridhan and therefore, there is no entrustment of any property to Ms. Shobha Sachdeva.
3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that there are specific allegations against respondent no. 2 Ms. Shobha CR No. 204217/2016 3 of 8 Sachdeva in the complaint which have been made by the complainant Sweety. He argued that Shobha Sachdeva is the elder sister of the accused Rajesh Kapoor and she was instrumental for getting the accused Rajesh Kapoor married with the complainant. It was submitted by the learned counsel that in the complaint made by complainant Sweety she has frequently used the terms "inlaws family". He submitted that the accused Rajesh Kapoor has only two sisters and therefore, whenever the complainant has used the expression "inlaws family", it refers to both the sisters of the accused Rajesh Kapoor. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the complaint made by complainant Sweety to DCP, Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, wherein in Para 28, she has stated that she asked for her stridhan worth Rs.5.00 lacs, back from Rajesh Kapoor and his sisters which was denied to her. It is further stated that his elder sister namely Shobha Sachdeva residing at 222E, G. K. II has also denied the return of her stridhan. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the statement of Smt. Kamlesh Manchanda, mother of the complainant and the supplementary statement of Ms. Sweety. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also submitted that the revisionist has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused Rajesh and his sisters.
4. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the allegations made in the original complaint and the subsequent complaint are distinct and there is lot of improvement in the CR No. 204217/2016 4 of 8 allegations which have been levelled by the complainant subsequently. The learned counsel has submitted that in the original complaint, the complainant has submitted that silver cards were given to Rajesh Kapoor. However, in the subsequent list submitted by her, she has mentioned at Sr. No. 7 that five silver cards each were given to Rajesh Kapoor and his family members. He submitted that the respondent no. 2 has not stayed with the accused Rajesh Kapoor after the marriage with complainant and there is no incident in the entire complaint against Shobha Sachdeva that could reflect that she had harassed or subjected the complainant to cruelty. He also submitted that section 406 IPC is not attracted against Shobha Sachdeva because she was not 'entrusted' with stridhan articles.
5. Having considered the submissions of both the counsels, I have gone through the trial court record.
6. The marriage between the complainant and Rajesh Kapoor had taken place on 22.01.2014. However, from the date of marriage itself, as per the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant had allegedly suffered in different treatment and sometimes she has been ridiculed and taunted. It is to be noted that the accused Rajesh Kapoor was residing with his sister Neelam while his elder sister Shobha Sachdeva is residing at some other place. No doubt from the record it is apparent that Shobha Sachdeva had taken participation in the marriage being the elder sister of the accused Rajesh but that by itself is not a ground to indicate that she had committed CR No. 204217/2016 5 of 8 the offence under section 498A IPC. Section 498A IPC deals with the punishment to husband or his relative when a woman is subjected to cruelty. The expression 'cruelty' for the purpose of 498A IPC means firstly, any willful 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 secondly, harassment to a woman with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or on account of failure by her to meet such demands.
7. In the complaint which have been made by Ms. Sweety, there is nothing to show that there was ever a demand of any dowry by the accused Ms. Shobha Sachdeva at the time of marriage. Subsequent to marriage, there is no incident which shows that she has been harassed by Shobha Sachdeva in connection with any demand of dowry.
8. So far as the stridhan is concerned, the in laws of a woman can be liable for the offence under section 406 IPC in case the stridhan articles are "entrusted" to the in laws and which they refuse to return on demand. Therefore, to attract section 406 IPC, first and foremost element which the prosecution has to establish is the "entrustment" of the stridhan articles to the inlaws. Any article or money which is given at the time of marriage would be considered as 'dowry' if this is given in consideration of the marriage and if such article is given to a woman for her use at the time of marriage and in case the woman demand these articles back after separating CR No. 204217/2016 6 of 8 from the husband and in laws do not return those articles, section 406 IPC may be attracted.
9. Coming to the facts of the present case, giving of five silver cards at the time of marriage as a "gift" will not bring those articles within the definition of stridhan or dowry articles. Explanation I to section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 clearly show that presents made at the time of marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. Considering this explanation of the term 'dowry' in the Act, one can say that the articles mentioned in the list of stridhan at serial no. 7 will not fall in the category of stridhan or dowry.
10. The learned magistrate has dealt with this issue though briefly but sufficiently and observed that there is no specific allegation against Shobha Sachdeva and therefore, Ld. MM declined to summon her as an accused in this case.
11. Considering all the material available on the record, I am of the view that the order of the learned magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The learned counsel for the revisionist had submitted that the learned MM has not considered the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. Even in the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C., there is no specific allegation for the offences under section 498A CR No. 204217/2016 7 of 8 IPC against the respondent no. 2 Ms. Shobha Sachdeva though there are clear allegation against the younger sister Ms. Neelam, who was residing with the accused Rajesh Kapoor after his marriage with the revisionist.
12. I have not found or noticed any perversity in the order passed by learned MM. The material placed before the court was duly considered before passing impugned order. Though the investigating agency had sent Ms. Shobha Sachdeva for trial for the offence under section 406 IPC but the learned MM has rightly held that no offence under section 406 IPC was disclosed against accused Ms. Shobha Sachdeva.
13. Therefore, the revision petition stands dismissed. A true copy of the order along with trial court record be sent to the trial court concerned.
14. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
court today i.e. 11.12.2017 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CR No. 204217/2016 8 of 8