Delhi District Court
Cr No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra vs . State & Another. on 16 January, 2014
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
Criminal Revision No. 94/2013.
Sanjay Mehra,
S/o Late Sh. S.K. Mehra,
R/o E61/29, Tughlakabad Extn.,
New Delhi. ... Revisionist.
Vs.
1. The State.
2. Neeta Mehra
W/o Sh. Sanjay Mehra,
D/o Sh. V.N. Anand,
R/o H. No. 17, First Floor,
Babar Road, New Delhi1. ... Respondents.
Date of Institution. : 7.5.2013. Arguments Advanced On. : 16.1.2014. Date of Order. : 16.1.2014. 16.1.2014. Present: Sh. Soni Kumar, ld. counsel for revisionist/husband
(accused before the ld. Trial Court). Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no. 1.
None for respondent no. 2/wife (complainant before the ld. Trial Court).
Page No. 1 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
Certain clarifications from the ld. counsel for revisionist sought.
Perused the entire record, including TCR, carefully.
:: ORDER ::
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present revision petition u/s 397 CrPC, filed by the revisionist/husband (accused before the ld. Trial Court), against the impugned order dated 7.1.2013 of Ms. Tyagita Singh, ld. MM (Mahila Court), Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "State Vs. Sanjay Mehra", FIR No. 98/09 of PS Nanak Pura, u/s 498A/406 IPC, whereby charge for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC, was framed against the revisionist.
2. It is the case of the revisionist that his marriage with the respondent no. 2/wife (complainant before the ld. Trial Court) took place on 15.5.2002 at Arya Samaj Mandir and it was second marriage for both the parties. It is further the case of the revisionist that the respondent no. 2 was promised by the mother of the revisionist that if the revisionist is successfully ousted from the house and if reconstruction takes place, then she would give one floor to the respondent no. 2 in the property bearing no. C784, New Friends Colony, and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, the revisionist was dispossessed from his own Page No. 2 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
house by the respondent no. 2 and his mother on 23.9.2007 and, thereafter, the respondent no. 2 and mother of the revisionist, had filed respective petitions under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the petition filed by the mother of the revisionist has been dismissed, whereas the petition of the respondent no. 2 is pending. It is also the case of the revisionist that the earlier complaint of the respondent no.
2 filed with CAW Cell, Tilak Marg, was investigated and found to be meritless and, therefore, was rejected, but the respondent no. 2 filed another complaint, concealing the factum of rejection of first complaint with CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, and got registered the present case FIR, which the police investigated in an illegal, biased and unlawful manner and the charge sheet filed by the police contains no evidence against the revisionist and further, the ld. Trial Court without looking into the facts and the evidence available on record and the established law and procedure, has framed the charges against the revisionist, vide impugned order. It is further the case of the revisionist that the ld. Trial Court without appreciating the dictum and mandate propounded in the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts and without appreciating statutory law as well as established principal of law and material on record, passed impugned order, which is bad in law, Page No. 3 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
illegal, perverse and contrary to fact and law. It is further the case of the revisionist that MLC No. 19250 dated 23.8.2008 of the respondent no. 2 at Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, mentions no physical injury, but only pain in one or two part of body and such vagueness of cruelty, is defined in cases titled as "Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane", (1975) 2 SCC 326 and "Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand", 2003 Cri LJ 2759 (Delhi). It is also the case of the revisionist that the Hon'ble Supreme Court defined mental cruelty in case titled as "V. Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat", AIR 1994 SC 710. The revisionist has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 949/2003, titled as "Neelu Chopra & Another Vs. Bharti", claiming that in the said case the wife had produced her medical report of AIIMS, Delhi, but Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the report and said that in criminal case only precise facts are required and in the said report, it was not mentioned on which date, the wife was allegedly beaten and by whom.
On the basis of the said case law, the revisionist has claimed that MLC of respondent no. 2 from Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital has to be rejected, as the same is bereft of when the respondent no. 2 was beaten and by whom. It is further the case of the revisionist that in the entire charge sheet, it has not been mentioned that the revisionist has ever demanded dowry from the respondent Page No. 4 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
no. 2 and even the respondent no. 2's sister Geeta Kapoor and her husband Sandeep Kapoor, had stated in their statements that the revisionist asked money from the respondent no. 2 for his business purpose and the said amount has already been returned to respective persons.
It is also the claim of the revisionist that even as per allegations, he never demanded any money from the respondent no. 2, for domestic use or for his personal use.
In this regard, the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of Devision Bench of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1613/2005, titled as "Appasaheb & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra". It is further the case of the revisionist that the Investigating Officer did not comply with the circular no.
45966/P.Sec/Addl. CP/CAW dated 29.3.2007 of Addl.
CP, CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi, wherein at point no. 3, it was directed that Investigating Officer's should ensure application of mind in the collection of the evidences relating to cruelty/harassment aspect and this cruelty/harassment should invariable be linked with the demand of dowry, in shape of reports made by complainant with concerned PS and medical reports with regard to physical assault to the complainant amongst others. It is further the case of the revisionist that the procedure for procuring the receipt of purchase or manufacture of the istridhan articles were not complied Page No. 5 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
by the Investigating Officer immediately, inspite of the fact that there were allegations of misappropriation/criminal breach of trust and despite circular of Commissioner of Police. It is further the claim of the revisionist that the efforts put in by the Investigating Officer in this regard, should have been reflected in the body of the case diary and proper verification ought to have been done to establish the source of the istridhan to establish the genuineness of the allegations leveled by the complainant and the complainant should have been asked to disclose the source of money used to purchase costly items, which is not the case herein. The revisionist has also relied upon circular no. 7/2007 dated 23.3.2007 of DCP, Head Quarter, on behalf of Commissioner of Police, wherein it was mentioned ... ... ... 1. Where allegations, are made that dowry has been given as a consideration for marriage, the list in terms of Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985, must be insisted upon by the Investigating Officer. 2. Where there is expenditure of a huge amount of money without disclosing the source of income, police should insist upon compliance of Rule 2 of Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985, and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. It is further the case of the revisionist that Page No. 6 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
in this circular, point no. 1 and 2, Commissioner of Police, Delhi, has given clear instruction that list of istridhan should comply with Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. Since same was not there, complaint should not have been entertained. It is further the claim of the revisionist that since the marriage took place in Arya Samaj Mandir, in a very simple manner and no dowry/istridhan was exchanged, therefore, there was no question of invoking Section 406 IPC. It is further the case of the revisionist that the respondent no. 2 (wife) has herself alleged that on 23.9.2007, he (husband) packed his bags and left the matrimonial house. It is further the case of the revisionist that when he left the house, the respondent no. 2 was in the house with complete household items, clothes and all luxury items and her istridhan, then how a case u/s 406 IPC can be made out against him. The revisionist has further relied upon the case of "Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand", 2003 Cri LJ 2759 (Delhi), claiming that in the said case it was held that "taunting" is not cruelty. He has also relied upon the case of "Krishan Jeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana", 11 (2003) DMC 127 (P&H), wherein it was held that allegations have to be specific and general allegations are not sufficient to procure Section 498A IPC. He has also relied upon the case of "Surajmal Barithia Vs. State of Page No. 7 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
West Bengal", 11 (2003) DMC 546 (Cal) (DB), wherein it was held that vague allegations are not acceptable. He has also relied upon the case of "Sher Singh Vs. State of Punjab", 11 (2003) DMC 192 (P&H), to claim that the allegations do not fall under the purview of mental or physical cruelty because mental cruelty can broadly be defined as that conduct, which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering, as would make it is not possible for that party to live with the other. It is further the case of the revisionist that allegations of demand of dowry are not quantified/specified in the complaint and, are vague. In this regard, he has relied upon the case of "Krishan Jeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana", 11 (2003) DMC 127 (P&H), wherein it was held that where, there is no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be proved. He has also relied upon the case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Criminal MC No. 7262/2006, titled as "Smt. Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) & Others", wherein it was held that vague allegations, as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband, cannot be accepted by any Court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing of charge. He has further relied upon the case of "Pepsi Food Ltd. & Another Vs. Page No. 8 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
Special Judicial Magistrate & Others", AIR 1998 SC 128, wherein it was held that summoning an accused in a criminal case is serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as matter of course. He has also relied upon many other judgments, as mentioned in the revision petition, but the same are not mentioned here for the sake of brevity. It is lastly prayed on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned order of framing of charge, is not sustainable and may, accordingly, be set aside.
3. Per contra, Sh. Aditya Kumar, substitute ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no. 1 and Sh. G.K. Seth, ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2, had refuted the contentions of the ld.
counsel for revisionist and had stated that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the same has been rationally passed, after considering the material on record and this Court, in revision petition, cannot examine the said material meticulously and no roving inquiry is permissible and only a prima facie view is to be taken and existence of grave suspicion is sufficient for framing of charge and since there are specific allegations of cruelty (as defined u/s 498A IPC), caused to the respondent no. 2 by the revisionist and also of criminal breach of trust of the istridhan articles of the respondent no. 2 by the revisionist, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the revision petition may be Page No. 9 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
dismissed.
4. The ld. Trial Court, vide impugned order has mentioned "... ... ... Perusal of original complaint itself reveals that there are prima facie specific allegations of cruelty and harassment in complaint of complainant and allegations of criminal breach of trust against accused. Hence, charge u/s 498A/406 IPC framed against the accused Sanjay Mehra to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ... ... ..."
5. The relevant portion of the complaint dated 7.4.2009 of the complainant given to the police on the basis of which this case was registered, is reproduced herein as under: "2 a. ... ... ... The garage unit was in possession of Sh. Sanjay Mehra. The complainant got busy with the other members of the family while Sh. Sanjay Mehra left for his office which was then located in the front portion of the ground floor. Sh. Sanjay Mehra stayed there till late night with his partner Sh. Ravi Dayal. When Sh. Sanjay Mehra returned home around midnight, Sh. Sanjay Mehra told the complainant that Sh. Sanjay Mehra had erratic working hours and the complainant had to adjust to them. Thereafter Sh. Sanjay Mehra made it a habit to come home late every night. After a week of the wedding, Sh. Sanjay Mehra very clearly told the complainant that complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra both are independent individuals and that the Page No. 10 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
complainant should not try to bind him in any kind of relationship, nor any kind of interference or any indulgence from the complainant will be accepted and if the complainant tried to do so it will not be good for the complainant. Sh. Sanjay Mehra further stated that Sh. Sanjay Mehra was a free bird and Sh. Sanjay Mehra be left alone. Quiet often Sh. Sanjay Mehra would walk out of the house around 10 or 11 pm at night with his partner Mr. Ravi Dayal and would return back home between 1 and 3 am, leaving the complainant all alone in the garage unit. The complainant was a young and newly wedded girl and would get really cared all alone, as everybody else was busy in their own living units.
b. That somewhere in the month of June, 2002, Sh. Sanjay Mehra planned a holiday to Rishikesh with the complainant, Mr. Ravi Dayal and his family and two other friends and their families for 4 days. All these days in Rishikesh Sh. Sanjay Mehra would take Mr. Ravi Dayal alongwith him very early hours of the morning and would not return for 4 to 6 hours, leaving the complainant with his friends and their families as well as Mr. Ravi Dayal's family with whom the complainant was not very familiar at all. On asking him where Sh. Sanjay Mehra was, Sh. Sanjay Mehra started screaming, abusing and threatening the complainant, if the complainant ever questioned him. Sh. Sanjay Mehra started showing the complainant his true colours within a month of the marriage. On the return back to Delhi, Sh. Sanjay Mehra asked the complainant to go back to the parents' house as Sh. Sanjay Mehra was feeling suffocated Page No. 11 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
because of the complainant's presence in the house which the complainant ignored and tolerated his nuisance and tried to adjust according to Sh. Sanjay Mehra's wishes, to make the marriage work.
c. That in July 2002, the complainant's school reopened. After a few days Sh. Sanjay Mehra forced the complainant to give him Rs. 50,000/ for his business failing which the complainant would have to face his brutal behavior of abuses, screaming and threatening the complainant of throwing the complainant out of the house. A cheque no. 0366413 dated 30th September 2002, drawn on Bank of India from the complainant's Saving Account No. 13348 was issued by the complainant to quench the thrust of Sh. Sanjay Mehra for money.
d. That in the middle of September 2002, complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra got to know that the complainant was expecting. when Sh. Sanjay Mehra got to know about it, Sh. Sanjay Mehra purposely planned his birthday party on 27th September 2002, and invited about 5060 people. The complainant had to take care of all the arrangements from cooking to other miscellaneous things, without any help. Soon after the party, due to heavy exertion and under rest, some complications occurred in the complainant's pregnancy and the complainant was advised complete bed rest by the Gynecologist. On hearing this, Sh. Sanjay Mehra forcefully dropped the complainant at the complainant's parents' residence, to be taken care of by the complainant's parents. All this while Sh. Sanjay Mehra visited the complainant at her parent's house only once, Page No. 12 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
excusing himself on the pretext of over work and that Sh. Sanjay Mehra couldn't take care of the complainant. When the complainant requested him to spend sometime with her, Sh. Sanjay Mehra abused and screamed at the complainant. This developed further fear and nervousness in the complainant's mind; as a result the complainant had a miscarriage in October, 2002. In the meantime, the complainant's parents, on the advice of the complainant's motherinlaw took the complainant to a renowned Gynecologist Dr. Raj Gupta whose residencecumclinic is at New Friends Colony, D Block, Near Mata Ka Mandir, New Delhi. On seeking the reports and after the complainant's examination, she advised D&C. Sh. Sanjay Mehra disapproved of the D&C and asked the complainant to delay the entire procedure for a month and wait for further developments, but when the Gynecologist, the complainant's mother and motherinlaw explained all the complications, the complainant got scared. The complainant tried to explain it to Sh. Sanjay Mehra but Sh. Sanjay Mehra would start screaming and shouting at the complainant. Later, after the procedure the complainant returned back to New Friends Colony, Sh. Sanjay Mehra would invariably scream, abuse and fight with the complainant for no reason and would ask the complainant to go back to the her parent's house and told the complainant to apply for a Mutual Consent Divorce. Being a woman of Hindu Society the complainant's mind was shattered and she kept on tolerating his bad and wild behavior of Sh. Sanjay Mehra with the hope that some day better sense will prevail upon Sh. Sanjay Mehra.
Page No. 13 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
e. That on 30th October, 2002, Sh. Sanjay Mehra forced the complainant to get Rs. 50,000/ from her sister Geeta Kapur. The complainant's sister obliged the complainant and issued a cheque no. 004746 dated 30th October 2002, drawn on erstwhile Bank of Punjab, Bengali Market, New Delhi. Sh. Sanjay Mehra again forced the complainant to get another lakh of rupees from the complainant's sister. She again issued a cheque mo. 22438 dated 20.11.2002 drawn on Bank of Punjab, Bengali Market, New Delhi, for Rs. One Lakh. On the complainant's reminding him to return money, Sh. Sanjay Mehra would abuse the complainant, her sister and brother inlaw. However, the first payment of Rs. 50,000/ was received by the complainant's sister under severe punishment by the complainant. The payment of Rs. One Lakh was received after four years after persistent reminders from the complainant's sister to whom also Sh. Sanjay Mehra threatened and abused extensively. The complainant's sister's husband was also abused and threatened separately.
f. That in the month of December, 2002, the complainant's sister Mrs. Geeta Kapur and brotherinlaw Mr. Sandeep Kapur residing at G3, Anand Niketan, New Delhi, planned a holiday with the complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra for about 10 days to Rajasthan. All the arrangements were made by the complainant's brotherinlaw Mr. Kapur. Sh. Sanjay Mehra insisted on driving down to all the places. In front of them, Sh. Sanjay Mehra always misbehaved and insulted the complainant and called the complainant a dumb headed woman with no sense prevailing in the complainant's Page No. 14 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
head. On the 8th or 9th day, Sh. Sanjay Mehra called Mr. Ravi Dayal to Jaipur and Sh. Sanjay Mehra extended his holiday by another 4 days and asked the complainant, Mrs. Geeta Kapur and Mr. Sandeep Kapur to take a train journey back to Delhi. All the expenses were incurred by the complainant's brotherinlaw which was never reimbursed by Sh. Sanjay Mehra to him despite various requests made by them and the said act of Sh. Sanjay Mehra lowered the prestige of the complainant in the eyes of others.
g. That on returning back from Rajasthan, in January, 2003, the complainant got to know that the complainant was expecting again. The complainant's mother took her to her aunt Dr. Anjala Gaur, who is a Gynecologist. After seeing the complainant's previous history, she advised the complainant complete bed rest. The complainant was thus confined to the bed room on the first floor only, as this was only of the rooms in the garage unit and the other being the kitchencumdiningcumdrawing room which was on the ground floor and the complainant was not allowed to climb the stairs. Ever day Sh. Sanjay Mehra used to bring Mr. Ravi at home at odd hours around 10 pm and they both would sit in the same bedroom and watch a movie on the VCD player. The complainant would feel really uncomfortable and awkward with no privacy. The complainant had no option but to accept to Sh. Sanjay Mehra's callous and beastly behavior/attitude. After a few days, Sh. Sanjay Mehra and Mr. Ravi Dayal started going out of station to Kasauli, Jaipur and even Rishikesh and he was not at all bothered about the complainant's care and condition. The Page No. 15 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
complainant's motherinlaw and sisterinlaw would take turns to visit the complainant and take care of the complainant. They would also take the complainant to the complainant's Gynecologist Dr. Y. Pande. However, Sh. Sanjay Mehra was paramount busy with his partner and his two sons namely Yadhanshu and Ritesh Dayal. whenever Sh. Sanjay Mehra was at home, Sh. Sanjay Mehra would fight with the complainant for not cooking food for him and Mr. Ravi Dayal and family, whenever theu used to come, even at odd hours and for not taking good care of teh house and he told the complainant that she was a lazy fox and always gives excuses for resting and purposely does not do any housework. This uncalled for behavior caused further mental stress, tension, torture and harassment to the complainant, due to which the complainant developed more complications to her pregnancy. The complainant developed Asthma and high BP and the her doctor advised the complainant to nebulize 4 times a day and to inhale oxygen for 6 to 8 hours in a day as the baby wasn't getting adequate oxygen. Sh. Sanjay Mehra had left the complainant alone to take care of myself as Sh. Sanjay Mehra was present only for name sake. All through the pregnancy, Sh. Sanjay Mehra insisted that complainant should have a baby boy and not a girl child or else the complainant would face the music.
h. That finally on the 8th of August, 2003, the complainant delivered a baby girl named Zia, by the cesarean section in Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi. Because of the mental stress and tension caused by Sh. Sanjay Mehra the baby was very weak and under weight (1.6 kg) and needed special care and Page No. 16 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
attention. On hearing of a baby girl, Sh. Sanjay Mehra felt really disappointed and depressed and left the Hospital. The Gynecologist kept looking for him but Sh. Sanjay Mehra was nowhere to be seen while the complainant's motherinlaw and the complainant's parents were present all the time. As Zia was a weak baby with a low immunity, she would get colds and coughs very frequently. Sh. Sanjay Mehra had no interest in her or the complainant. The complainant had to extend the complainant's leave to a full year, so as to take care of the baby. The daily expenses were increasing day by day but Sh. Sanjay Mehra was not bothered about the same and intentionally neglected to maintain the complainant and her daughter and did not provide them the necessities of life. Despite having huge income, Sh. Sanjay Mehra just took care of his own comforts. The complainant's parents have been of great help monetarily and morally. The complainant's in laws were also on the complainant's side and favour and against the acts and misdeeds of Sh. Sanjay Mehra.
i. That in the month of December 2003, Zia got seriously ill and had to be taken to the hospital. Sh. Sanjay Mehra pretended to be really busy and started abusing, beating and screaming at the complainant in front of his office employees for giving birth to a weak, sickly baby girl. The complainant alone took her to the Holy Family Hospital where she was detected Pneumonia. Sh. Sanjay Mehra started shouting and abusing the complainant on telephone and started accusing the complainant. Sh. Sanjay Mehra did not come to the hospital for 2 days and when Sh. Sanjay Page No. 17 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
Mehra came, Sh. Sanjay Mehra again shouted at the complainant in front of the nursing staff of the hospital. Sh. Sanjay Mehra has never been interested in Zia or the complainant.
j. That in the month of April 2004, the complainant joined the complainant's school as going out to work was really important for the complainant. The complainant needed money for Zia and herself in order to meet out the day to day expenses, as Sh. Sanjay Mehra was totally neglecting to maintain the complainant and Zia. At times, the complainant was compelled to take money from others for meeting with unforeseen circumstances and contingencies of life. Thereafter, Sh. Sanjay Mehra started falsely representing that his business was running in losses. But his personal expenses for himself, Mr. Ravi Dayal and his two sons was always unparallel, to this Sh. Sanjay Mehra's credit cards would take care of the expenses. Sh. Sanjay Mehra has never bought anything for the complainant in all these 5 years nor has Sh. Sanjay Mehra got anything for Zia.
k. That on the complainant's joining the school Sh. Sanjay Mehra decided that the complainant would drop Zia at the complainant's parents' house in the morning, pick her up in the afternoon and bring her back to New Friends Colony. For the complainant life became mechanical with no ray or happiness in the married life but the complainant still tried to carry on hoping that wisdom might dawn and Sh. Sanjay Mehra might realize his family's responsibility.
l. That in the month of August 2004, Zia's Page No. 18 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
first birthday, Sh. Sanjay Mehra did not approve of having a small party saying Sh. Sanjay Mehra could not afford it. The complainant planned a small get together out of the complainant's small income, inviting just a few of the very close relatives. Sh. Sanjay Mehra came in as a guest with Mr. Ravi Dalal, Yadhanshu and Ritesh and went away after a little while leaving the boys with the complainant to take care of them.
m. That in the month of October 2004, Sh. Sanjay Mehra wanted to celebrate Yadhanshu's birthday i.e. elder son of Mr. Ravi Dayal at C784, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Sh. Sanjay Mehra told the complainant to make all the arrangements, cook food, decorate the place and organize the entire party for about 35 to 40 people, for which Sh. Sanjay Mehra just paid the complainant Rs. 2,500/, the rest of the expenses were met by the complainant which again had put a financial burden upon the complainant, which caused further harassment to the complainant.
n. That on 16th November, 2004, Zia had to undergo a surgery for separating her 2 fingers of her left hand as they were joined since birth, at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for which the complainant had already applied leave for 10 days in advance which was granted. The complainant alone took Zia to the hospital in the morning. After the Anesthetist gave her anesthesia in the complainant's lap and Zia became unconscious. The doctors took her to the Operation Theater. When the complainant came down to the waiting lounge, she found Sh. Sanjay Mehra had reached there and he started screaming and shouting at the Page No. 19 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
complainant for no reason as per his habit. The people around in the lounge calmed him down. immediately Sh. Sanjay Mehra walked out from there. In the evening, complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra were to clear all the bills and checkout, the complainant kept trying his mobile, and Sh. Sanjay Mehra didn't answer to any of the calls. Finally the complainant had to request Dr. Khazanchi, the surgeon to accept the payment by cheque from the complainant's school account cheque no. 0366423 for Rs. 33,319/ drawn on Bank of India. Thereafter, the complainant arranged for the complainant's sister's driver and went back home. The complainant was utterly shocked to see Sh. Sanjay Mehra, Mr. Ravi Dayal, Yadhanshu and Ritest watching a movie on the VCD player and Sh. Sanjay Mehra didn't even bother to look at the ailing little baby Zia, instead Sh. Sanjay Mehra asked the complainant to leave Zia with the complainant's motherinlaw and come and make food for the four of them.
o. That in the month of May, 2005, during the complainant's summer break, Sh. Sanjay Mehra would call Mr. Ravi Dayal's both the sons at C784, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Everyday in the morning, leave them with the complainant for the whole day. Sh. Sanjay Mehra would very rudely instruct the complainant to get their household and school work completed alongwith their models as well as charts and feed them nicely. Sh. Sanjay Mehra would make them spend the night in the same one bed room where the complainant, Zia and Sh. Sanjay Mehra himself would sleep. One Sunday as Zia was not feeling well, the complainant was unable to prepare lunch, to this Sh. Sanjay Mehra started beating the Page No. 20 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
complainant with fist blows and kicked the complainant in front of the two boys and Zia. The complainant's inlaws had to intervene and stop him. Thereafter the complainant started withdrawing and reduced communicating with Sh. Sanjay Mehra because of the fear complex that Sh. Sanjay Mehra had developed in the mind of complainant.
p. That Sh. Sanjay Mehra had the habit of walking out of the house at odd hours at night around 1011 pm without telling and return back by 2 or 3 am in the morning. This resulted in a lot of unrest and the complainant developed a severe medical complications. In the morning when Zia and the complainant left the house Sh. Sanjay Mehra would call Mr. Ravi Dayal at home, and in the presence of the maid, both of them would sleep till noon time, have breakfast, bathe and leave home by afternoon before the complainant's arrival. As a result no maid would stick in the house for long and the house load would fall upon the complainant alongwith Sh. Sanjay Mehra's demonic, aggressive and rude behavior towards the complainant.
q. That on 6th October 2005, Zia was again admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, for her second surgery. Sh. Sanjay Mehra dropped the complainant and Zia at the hospital and went away. Sh. Sanjay Mehra had switched off his mobile no. 9811079727. the complainant kept trying his phone many a times during the day but there was no reply. At the time of the payment, the complainant had not clue as to where Sh. Sanjay Mehra was so the complainant called the complainant's mother to make the payment of Rs. 23,682/, so that Page No. 21 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra could go back home. When Sh. Sanjay Mehra came back in the evening Sh. Sanjay Mehra started insulting and screaming at the complainant and the complainant's mother.
r. That in the month of August 2006, Zia's third birthdayaround the 6th of August 2006, when the complainant called up Sh. Sanjay Mehra to ask as to what complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra should do for Zia's birthday. Sh. Sanjay Mehra started abusing the complainant and asked the complainant whether the complainant had taken an appointment from him for talking to him and that why the complainant didn't remind him about Zia's birthday? Sh. Sanjay Mehra's family and the complainant's sister and brothernlaw came to wish Zia. Sh. Sanjay Mehra as usual was consciously absent and came back when everyone had left. When the complainant was clearing up Sh. Sanjay Mehra again abused the complainant very harshly.
s. That on the occasion of Diwali 2006, while igniting a cracker for Zia, the complainant's "salwar" caught fire. Sh. Sanjay Mehra alongwith Yadhanshu and Ritesh kept standing and watching and walked away. Sh. Sanjay Mehra totally ignored the complainant and Zia and went inside with the two boys. The maid quickly got a bucket of water and helped the complainant in extinguishing the fire.
t. That when Sh. Sanjay Mehra's mother asked him not to bring the boys to her house, Sh. Sanjay Mehra got extremely furious and wild and started fighting with everybody in the Page No. 22 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
house including his mother. Sh. Sanjay Mehra asked the complainant to fight with the complainant's motherinlaw and misbehave with her to whom the complainant never reacted. Sh. Sanjay Mehra became all the more furious and cruel and would beat the complainant up and push the complainant in front of the boys for disobeying him and his commands.
u. That all these years of the married life, Sh. Sanjay Mehra would purposely plan a holiday with Mr. Ravi Dayal and his two sons around the complainant's birthday which fall on 15th of August, just to tease the complainant, make the complainant feel hurt and depressed. Sh. Sanjay Mehra also treated C784, New Friends Colony, New Delhi as a restaurant, would bring in his friends at odd hours late at night and forced the complainant to cook food for them. The complainant is a working woman and has to wake up early in the morning for making breakfast for Sh. Sanjay Mehra and Mr. Ravi Dayal. If on any day the complainant failed to fulfill the complainant's duties, Sh. Sanjay Mehra would insult the complainant; scream at the complainant and abuse her before leaving for school.
v. That in the month of April 2006, when Zia was to be admitted to a preschool, Sh. Sanjay Mehra instructed the complainant to admit Zia in a school near the complainant's mother's house. So the complainant got her admitted to Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Child Study Centre. Sh. Sanjay Mehra very clearly stated that Zia is the complainant's responsibility and that the complainant has to meet to all her problems and demands, including the school Page No. 23 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
fees and that his hands were already full with Yadhanshu and Ritesh's responsibility. Now Zia is in class I studying in Springdales School, Pusa Raod, New Delhi and till date all her expenses are met by the complainant.
w. That since 2007, Sh. Sanjay Mehra had been insisting that complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra would shift the residence from 784, New Friends Colony, New Delhi to somewhere else either in Gurgaon or Noida. Sh. Sanjay Mehra also told that complainant and Sh. Sanjay Mehra would take a bigger apartment and that Mr. Ravi Dayal and his two sons would also shift into the same house and would live as a joint family as the three of them were his responsibility to which the complainant did not agree. Thereafter the complainant had to bear the brunt of brutality.
x. That in the month of August 2007, Zia's 4 birthday after the party got over, Sh. Sanjay th Mehra went to drop Ravi's sons at their house. On coming back, Sh. Sanjay Mehra woke the complainant up at night started fighting with the complainant, putting all false allegations on the complainant. After that the complainant decided not to entertain Mr. Ravi Dayal in the house. Things really got ugly. Sh. Sanjay Mehra would start hitting the complainant every now and then, for nothing.
y. That on 23td September 2007, the complainant was talking Zia to the complainant's motherinlaw's house on the first floor, Sh. Sanjay Mehra started hitting the complainant very cruelly without any cause. Sh. Sanjay Mehra started dragging the complainant, pulling the complainant's hair Page No. 24 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
and hitting the complainant against the wall. The complainant started shouting "bachao bachao" and on hearing the complainant's cries, the complainant's motherinlaw, brothersinlaw namely Mr. Ashwani Mehra and Mr. Kapil Mehra came to the complainant's rescue and saved her from Sh. Sanjay Mehra cruel clutches. Following that Sh. Sanjay Mehra fled from there. Later in the evening Sh. Sanjay Mehra came, packed his bags and left the house. In the evening around 8 pm, the complainant came to know from the complainant's parents that Sh. Sanjay Mehra had gone to their house and confessed to them that Sh. Sanjay Mehra has left the place after intensively beating the complainant. In fact Sh. Sanjay Mehra deserted the complainant and Zia for his own guilt. It is pointed out that Sh. Sanjay Mehra did the same thing with the complainant as his partner Mr. Ravi Dayal, in conjunction with Sh. Sanjay Mehra had done to his wife, Manjy Dayal. Mr. Ravi Dayal has thrown his wife out of his house and a case against him is pending in the Women Cell, Sarai Rohilla. Mr. Ravi Dayal has been sent to Tihar Jail twice for cruelty with his wife. even Sh. Sanjay Mehra name occurs in the concerned FIR. On 8th March 2008, the complainant dropped Zia at Sh. Sanjay Mehra's office as usual, precisely after 15 minutes Sh. Sanjay Mehra called the complainant up saying that Sh. Sanjay Mehra was not going to send Zia back and now she would stay with him in Mr. Ravi Dayal's house alongwith the two boys. The complainant really got scared and rushed to the office, to get Zia back. Sh. Sanjay Mehra started physically manhandling the complainant and the little child to which his office employees objected, Page No. 25 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
and his grip on the grip loosened. The complainant quickly grabbed Zia in the lap and ran out of the office and drove back home. Thereafter, Sh. Sanjay Mehra keeps threatening the complainant and the complainant's family with dire consequences. Zia has got so traumatized of him that whenever she hears that Sh. Sanjay Mehra is calling, she starts vomiting and tries to lock her up in a room where Sh. Sanjay Mehra would not reach.
z. That the complainant's motherinlaw is the absolute owner of the New Friends Colony house. She decided to reconstruct the house into 3 independent floors and she further stated that the complainant and Zia will be accommodated with the family in the residence wherever she shifts. Subsequently, two flats in Sukhdev Vihar were taken on rent by the motherinlaw of the complainant. Later on, the complainant got to know that Sh. Sanjay Mehra had already shifted into Mr. Ravi Dayal's house. The complainant and Zia shifted to Sukhdev Vihar with the complainant's motherinlaw. Sh. Sanjay Mehra always objected to the complainant's living with her inlaws. Sh. Sanjay Mehra would come and fight with them and ask them to throw the complainant out of the house. Sh. Sanjay Mehra wanted the complainant to shift to her parents' residence and that the complainant should not keep any contact with her inlaws. Finally, the complainant gave in to all the fights as it was affecting Zia's physical and mental growth, the complainant shifted to her parents' house at 17, Babar Road, New Delhi on 15th March 2008. But even here Sh. Sanjay Mehra doesn't let the complainant and Page No. 26 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
Sh. Sanjay Mehra live in peace. Sh. Sanjay Mehra keeps visiting the house at odd hours alongwith the two boys Yadhanshu and Ritesh. Zia is a school going child she needs to sleep on time but with his coming in at odd and late hours, the entire schedule of the child gets disturbed.
aa. That it is not out of place to mention here that Sh. Sanjay Mehra used to get various blank vouchers and blank papers signed from the complainant. Whenever, the complainant objected to the same, Sh. Sanjay Mehra used to abuse and manhandled the complainant. The complainant smells some foul play upon her. The complainant also apprehends that the said blank vouchers and blank papers may be used by Sh. Sanjay Mehra against the complainant.
bb. That it is also pointed out that during the stay of the complainant with Sh. Sanjay Mehra at the matrimonial house, Sh. Sanjay Mehra had taken all the jewellery, cash, istridhan and various other belongings of the complainant and despite various requests, Sh. Sanjay Mehra never returned the same and the said articles are still in his possession which the complainant estimates to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/.
cc. That the complainant's motherinlaw had also been a victim of the domestic violence committed by Sh. Sanjay Mehra various times. As such, she has already filed for a protection of her life and property under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in the Court of Sh. Manish Yadhuvanshi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Page No. 27 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
Delhi vide complaint case no. 535/01/2008, titled as "Smt. Premlata Mehra Vs. Sh. Sanjay Mehra" and the protection orders dated 26.5.2008 have already been passed against Sh. Sanjay Mehra.
dd. That on 23rd August, 2008, Sh. Sanjay Mehra came to complainant's parents' residence, with the intention of picking up fight with the complainant Zia and physically harmed the complainant and her parents. Sh. Sanjay Mehra started beating the complainant and her old aged parents, to which the complainant called the police. The complainant, her parents and Sh. Sanjay Mehra were taken for the medical checkup at RML Hospital, New Delhi. The complainant had lodged a complaint in writing with the Tilak Marg Police Station. He was warned by the police officials. Still off and on Sh. Sanjay Mehra keeps on calling on land line no. 01123710744 and abuses, threatens the complainant and her parents with dire consequences.
ee. That a kalandra no. 43A dated 24.8.2008, PS Tilak Marg, was registered against Sh. Sanjay Mehra under Section 39/97 of DP Act and the conviction order against Sh. Sanjay Mehra was passed by the Hon'ble Court, while imposing fine upon him to the tune of Rs. 100/ and in default simple imprisonment for one day, vide order dated 10.9.2008 passed by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Bansal, ld. MM, Patiala House, New Delhi."
6. Thus, on perusing of the complaint of the respondent no.
2, it is clear that there are large number of specific Page No. 28 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
allegations made by the respondent no. 2 in her complaint dated 7.4.2009 to the police, against the revisionist, for subjecting her to cruelty as defined u/s 498A IPC and for criminal breach of trust of her istridhan articles. The said allegations prima facie do not appear to be vague or bereft of necessary details. The veracity of the said allegations can only be tested by means of evidence during trial.
Only after completion of evidence and in case the complainant reproduces her allegations in her testimony then, it can be said as to whether the said acts would fall under the category of cruelty, as defined u/s 498A IPC.
The version of the revisionist cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge, as the same is a matter of defence and has to be proved during evidence. The various aforesaid judgments, relied by the revisionist do not help his case at this stage, as there are specific allegations against the revisionist for the aforesaid offences and corroboration of said allegations are not necessary for framing of charge u/s 498A/406 IPC. For framing of charge, the existence of only grave suspicion or a prima facie case, is necessary.
7. In case "State of Orissa Vs. D.N. Padhi", 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para no. 18, has held as under: Page No. 29 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
"18. ... ... ... Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is wellsettled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. By way of illustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may have to be examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused is accepted despite the well settled proposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the state (stage ?) of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined Page No. 30 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
to the material produced by the police."
8. Further, in the case of "Onkar Nath Mishra & Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another", 2008 (1) JCC 65, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, as under: "It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
9. Thus, in view of the abovesaid case laws and from the material available on record of the ld. Trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 7.1.2013 of the ld. Trial Court, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity, as there was sufficient material for framing of charge u/s 498A/406 IPC, against the revisionist (accused before the ld. Trial Court).
Page No. 31 of 32. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 94/13. Sanjay Mehra Vs. State & Another.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7.1.2013 of the ld.
Trial Court, is upheld and the present revision petition is dismissed.
10. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent to the ld. Trial Court, for 21.1.2014 at 2.00 pm, for information and further proceedings, as per law.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the ld. Trial Court, on the given date and time.
12. Revision petition file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 16.1.2014.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 32 of 32. Contd... ... ...