Delhi District Court
) Arun Handa vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 9 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPALI SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET010004502021
Cr. Rev No. 03/2021
1) Arun Handa
S/o Sh. P.K.Handa,
2) P.K.Handa,
S/o Lt. B.D.Handa,
3) Savita Handa,
w/o Sh. P.K.Handa,
All R/o B153, First Floor,
Sector15, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Noida, U.P.
..... Petitioners
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 14.01.2021
Date of reserving Judgment : 30.05.2022
Date of pronouncement : 09.06.2022
CR No. 03/2021 Page 1 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
Appearances
For all the Petitioners : Sh. Rajni Kant, Legal Aid
Counsel.
For the Respondent : Sh. Santosh Kumar, Addl.
Public Prosecutor for the
State
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Ld. M.M. (East) in Case FIR No. 03/2013, u/s 498A/406/34 IPC of PS Krishna Nagar as well as order on charge dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Ld. M.M.
2. The facts leading to the present case as stated in the petition are that the marriage of Anil Handa s/o Sh. P.K.Handa with the complainant was solemnized on 29.11.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The revisionists and the complainant and her husband Anil Handa were living separately since 2009. It is stated that the complainant filed a complaint against the revisionist and pursuant thereto present FIR bearing no. 3/13 dated 02.01.2013 was registered u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. It is stated that the complainant has made false allegations in the complaint and no charges are made out against the revisionists.
CR No. 03/2021 Page 2 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi
3. It is stated that vide the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 the Ld. M.M. has passed an order on charge thereby holding that charge u/s 498A/406/34 IPC is made out against the revisionists. It is urged that the said order is based on surmises and conjunctures and there is no evidence on record to connect the revisionists with the alleged offences. It is urged that no specific role of any revisionist has been asserted by the complainant and there is no witness to the allegations made in the complaint. It is further stated that as regards the incident of 10.04.2012, no MLC has been placed on record regarding the alleged beating of the complainant. The complainant herself refused to go with the police in search of her dowry articles. It is accordingly prayed that the order on charge dated 23.12.2019 and the subsequent order dated 03.02.2020 framing charge against the revisionists u/s 498A/406/34 IPC be set aside and the revisionists be discharged of the offences they are charged with.
4. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that considering the allegations levelled by the complainant the charges as framed by the Ld. Trial Court are proper and the petitioners ought to be tried for the offences they are charged with.
5. In the present FIR 03/2013, the complainant has interalia alleged that she was married to Anil Handa on 29.11.2010 and her parents CR No. 03/2021 Page 3 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi spent about 1012 Lakhs on marriage and gave gold jewellery and other dowry articles including furniture, electronics, utensils as per the wish and demand of the revisionists. Her parents gave her gold chain, diamond ring & silver Katori to her husband Anil Handa; a gold ring to her fatherin law; gold tops to her motherinlaw. Besides the said jewellery, other articles, cash, clothes, sweets were also given . After two days of her marriage, the revisionists started tauting her for not bringing sufficient dowry and started calling her parents with bad names. Her motherinlaw (revisionist no. 3) told her relatives that she had not brought anything in dowry and has brought only one suitcase. On 12.12.2010 her husband Anil Handa told that her parents should give him at least Rs. 500/ and sweets whenever he visited them, which she told her parents to comply. The complainant was always criticized and her inlaws found mistakes in her cooking and other household work and she was never made to feel comfortable in the house. Her inlaws used to abuse her parents for not giving sufficient money and other items as per their demands and she was treated like a maid servant and made to do entire household work. She was not allowed to eat more than two chapaties and whenever she requested for more, she was abused by her husband and motherinlaw.
6. In February 2011 the complainant went to her parents house alongwith her husband Anil Handa. Her husband started abusing her CR No. 03/2021 Page 4 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi father and taunted him for not performing the marriage in a decent manner and for not fulfilling the demand of gold bangles, which was made after marriage. Her husband Anil Handa used to give a list of items including fruits, utensils and cash etc. for all family members to be given on small festivals. On Karvachaut of 14.10.2011 her parents sent sweets, fruits etc. however, her husband fought with her as his family should have been given Rs. 1100/ each. Her husband and other family members had made her life hell and she was given beatings by her husband and motherinlaw even for small things. On Diwali day, they fought with her and abused her and her parents and sisters. She was told by her inlaws that if she wanted to live happily in her matrimonial house, then her parents should keep fulfilling their demands as and when they are made.
7. In January 2011 her husband forced her to sign on some blank papers and some had writing on them but she was not allowed to read them. She was threatened by her inlaws that they will use those signed papers if she did not follow what they said. She was advised to go for IVF treatment, but her inlaws refused to pay the expenses and pressurized her parents to bear the expenses. On 25.02.2012 her elder sisterinlaw taunted her as to why she got married if she was not able to bear a child. Her husband also sided with his sister and humiliated her. Her younger sisterinlaw Ekta used to interfere a lot in her married life CR No. 03/2021 Page 5 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi and complain against her regarding her work or bringing insufficient dowry. Her husband used to beat her without verifying anything from her and abused her. On 10.04.2012 her husband and parentsinlaw raised a demand of Rs. 1 Lakh from her parents for IVF treatment. When she expressed her inability as to ask her parents, she was given merciless beatings and thrown out of her matrimonial house. They snatched her mobile phone. Since then she has been staying with her parents. Her husband and inlaws have refused to take her back at her matrimonial house. All her dowry/stridhan articles including jewellery is in the custody and possession of her husband and inlaws as the same were entrusted to them immediately after the wedding and they have refused to give the same despite demands.
8. On the basis of the above complaint, the present FIR was registered u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
9. It is also argued by ld. Counsel for the petitioners that vide the impugned orders dated 03.02.2020 and 23.12.2019 the charges have been framed against the petitioners on the basis of surmises and conjunctures. The Trial court failed to appreciate that no specific dates have been mentioned by complainant in her complaint on the basis of which instant FIR was registered. There is no evidence or allegations CR No. 03/2021 Page 6 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi against the petitioners which connect the petitioners with the offence in issue. No specific role of any petitioner is established in the case. No witness or evidence has been found against the petitioners. None of the persons have uttered any single word against the petitioners. There is no police complaint or MLC regarding the alleged beating on 10.04.2012. The complainant has herself refused to go with the police in search of her dowry articles. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgments in the matter of L.K.Advani 1997, Crl.J. 2559; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, to contend that if two views are equally possible and the court is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gave rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the court would be justified to discharge the accused. It is urged that in the present case, nature of allegations made in the complaint constitute a fit case of discharge of the petitioners in the present matter.
10. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
11. As regards framing of charge in the case of State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Others, [(2000) 8 SCC 239] the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is not to CR No. 03/2021 Page 7 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons.
12. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 39 ], it was held that at the stage of framing of charge it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
13. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others [(1980) 1 SCR 323] a three judge Bench held that the Magistrate at the stage of framing charges had to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer.
14. In State of Orissa v. Devender Nath Padhi dated of CR No. 03/2021 Page 8 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi decision 29.11.2004 Crl. Appeal No. 497/2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charge the defence raised by the accused is not to be considered.
15. In view of the law discussed hereinabove, it is noted that the complainant in her complaint has made categorical allegations of cruelty, harassment and dowry demands against the petitioners and entrustment of dowry/stridhan articles.
16. Alongwith the chargesheet the IO has also placed on record the list of articles, which were allegedly given by the family of the complainant to the petitioners and also certain invoices regarding the same, an affidavit of complainant dated 13.04.2012 that she was being tortured by her inlaws, bank statements, medical papers regarding IVF treatment etc. Statements of witness i.e. father of the complainant, mother of the complainant, PW Rajiv Bhatia, Vikas Goel etc. have also been perused.
17. In view of the aforesaid it is manifest that there is sufficient material on record to indicate illtreatment, dowry demands, harassment of the complainant by the petitioners/accused persons after her marriage till 10.04.2012. Merely because specific dates are not given for all the incidents does not make the allegations vague or unworthy of credit. At CR No. 03/2021 Page 9 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi the stage of framing of charge, it is not for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the petitioners/accused persons. At this stage, the court is not to consider as to whether the material placed on record would eventually result in conviction or not and is required to see only if there is a strong suspicion on the basis of the material produced before it for form an opinion if the ingredients constituting the offence alleged are present in order to frame the charge. The facts in the present case prima facie disclose the allegations levelled by the complainant fall under section 498A/406/34 IPC.
18. In the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity, illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned orders dated 23.12.2019 and 03.02.2020 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The present revision petition is accordingly devoid of merits and same is dismissed.
19. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment.
20. File be consigned to the Record Room.
DEEPALI order Digitally signed by DEEPALI SHARMA SHARMA (Pronounced in the open Court (Deepali Sharma) Date: 2022.06.10 16:34:08 +0530 on 09.06.2022) Additional Sessions Judge04 East District, Court No. 10, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CR No. 03/2021 Page 10 of 10 ASJ04/KKD/Delhi