Delhi District Court
Smt. Kusum Lata vs Sh. Narender Kumar Singh on 11 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (EAST):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
Criminal Revision No.05/2014
02402R0212502012
Smt. Kusum Lata
D/o Shri Puran Singh,
R/o a-117, 1st Floor,
Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110092 .......... PETITIONER
Vs.
1. Sh. Narender Kumar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Son Pal Singh
2. Smt. Kiran
W/o Late Sh. Son Pal Singh
3. Ms. Greesh Lata
D/o Late Sh. Son Pal Singh
all residents of: Duplex-II/38, Sector-82,
Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
4. The State
Through SHO PS Preet Vihar ..... RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution: 31.07.2012
Order Reserved on: 11.07.2014
Date of Order: 11.07.2014
AND
Criminal Revision No.04/2014
02402R0202992012
State, GNCT of Delhi
Through Public Prosecutor .......... PETITIONER
Vs.
1. Sh. Narender Pal Singh (Husband)
S/o Late Sh. Son Pal Singh
2. Smt. Kiran (Mother-in-law)
W/o Late Sh. Son Pal Singh
3. Ms. Greeshma Lata (Nanad)
D/o Late Sh. Son Pal Singh
all residents of: Duplex-II/38, Sector-82,
Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. ..... RESPONDENTS
Crl. Revision No.05/14 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Narender Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 6
Crl. Revision No.04/14 State Vs. Narender Pal Singh & Ors.
Date of Institution: 21.07.2012
Order Reserved on: 11.07.2014
Date of Order: 11.07.2014
FIR No. 951/05
PS: Preet Vihar
U/s: 498A/406/420/34 IPC
ORDER:
1. By this common order, I shall decide the aforementioned criminal revision petitions. Both the revision petitions are directed against the same order i.e. order dt. 23.05.2012.
2. Vide the impugned order, ld MM, Mahila Court (East), had discharged all the accused persons and closed the case.
3. I have heard Ld. Chief Prosecutor for State, Sh. Rajeshwar Singh, ld. counsel for the petitioner Smt. Kusum Lata, Sh. Jitender Singh, learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 Narender Singh, and Sh. Yogender Singh, ld. counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and perused the Trial Court Record also.
4. FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of written complaint dt. 27.12.2005 filed by complainant Smt. Kusum Lata. She alleged that she was married to respondent Narender Singh on 19.05.2005. She asserts that marriage proposal was received pursuant to matrimonial advertisement given by her father. She alleges that it was represented that Narender Singh was borne on 27.10.1970 and was having educational qualification of B. Tech (Textiles) and MBA (Marketing). It was also represented that Narender Singh was serving as Assistant Director in the Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India. Respondent told his caste as SC (Jatav) and told his salary as Rs.22,500/- per month. Believing on these representations, complainant was married to respondent.
5. It is alleged that in the engagement ceremony itself, lot of things were given. In the marriage also huge money was spent. However, the groom side was not happy.
Crl. Revision No.05/14 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Narender Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 6 Crl. Revision No.04/14 State Vs. Narender Pal Singh & Ors.
6. Further allegations are that when complainant reached her matrimonial house, her husband, her father-in-law and her sisters-in-law almost started snatching her costly sarees and jewellary items but she refused to part with those articles. It is alleged that one of the two necklaces which were given to her by her in-laws were demanded back by them which she reluctantly returned. Complainant refused to hand over a diamond necklace and thereafter her ill-treatment started. She alleges that her in-laws abused her and taunted her.
7. In August she went to Mumbai alongwith the respondent and started living in a rented flat. She alleges that respondent used to ask her to arrange money from her parents to run the house. It is also alleged that respondent used to slap her and even tried to strangulate her once. Further allegation it that respondent asked money to buy a shop/flat.
8. Complainant goes on to allege that she came across some papers of respondent and found that respondent was belonging to ST (Meena). She also found some credit cards which she suspected were stolen credit cards and had been misused by the respondent. She also came to know that respondent was dismissed from service on 22.02.2001 and reinstated on 03.02.2005 on minimum basic pay of Rs.7,100/- per month. She submitted that this information was concealed from her. She also came to know that actual date of birth of respondent was 27.10.1968. She further found one document meant for Mahanagar Gas Ltd. wherein status of the respondent was mentioned as married and it was dt. 14.09.2004. She thus concluded that respondent had cheated her and respondent was of bad character. Fearing for her life, she left Mumbai on 10.10.2005 and went to her sister's house at Orisa. She came back to Delhi on 18.12.2005. She went to her matrimonial house with her parents and collected her belongings from there including the car which was given in marriage.
9. Matter was investigated. After investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 498A/406/420/34 IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Narender Singh (husband); Son Pal (father-in law); Smt. Kiran (mother-in-
Crl. Revision No.05/14 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Narender Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 6 Crl. Revision No.04/14 State Vs. Narender Pal Singh & Ors. law); and Smt. Greesh Lata (sister-in-law). However, ld. MM took cognizance only for the offences u/s 498A/406/420/34 IPC vide order dt. 01.08.2007.
10. After hearing Ld. APP and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, Ld. MM discharged all the accused persons vide impugned order. It may be mentioned here that accused Son Pal had expired during the pendency of the case.
11. Ld. MM had discharged the accused persons for the reasons that there were no specific and clear allegations against any of the accused. No dates of the alleged incidents of cruelty were mentioned. There were no specific allegations against any of the accused. Thus, all the accused persons were discharged for offences u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
12. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed in haste. He submitted that a lot of relevant material was ignored. He pointed out that ld. MM did not consider the case regarding offence u/s 420 IPC at all. He expressed the grievance that documentary evidence was totally ignored and overlooked by ld. MM. He submitted that there were clear allegations of demand of dowry as well as of physical and mental cruelty. Further, it is submitted that offence u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was also not considered.
13. Ld counsel for respondent Narender Singh, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that respondents were rightly discharged. He argued that there were no allegations from which any prima facie case for framing charge could be made out. He submitted that all the allegations were general and omnibus allegations. Ld. counsel has relied upon:
Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another Vs. Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604; Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors 2003 (2) JCC 881; Neera Singh Vs. State & Ors 138 (2007) DLT 152;
Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State of Assam 2009 (3) JCC 2106; Brahm Das Vs. State of H. P. 2009 (3) JCC 2112;
Crl. Revision No.05/14 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Narender Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 6 Crl. Revision No.04/14 State Vs. Narender Pal Singh & Ors. Dr. V. N. Sharma Vs. State 1995 JCC 558;
Mohd. Usman @ Haji Vs. State 1995 JCC 560;
Parminder Singh and Another Vs. State 95 (2002) DLT 410; Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admin and Another 1996 JCC 507; Neelu Chopra Vs. Bharati Crl. Appeal No. 949 of 2003; Sunita Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand 1745 of 2010; Puja Saxena Vs. State WP (Crl) No. 501/2010 and Crl MA 3921/2010; Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India WP 141 of 2005; Ran Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana Appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008; Appasaheb and Another Vs. State of Maharastra Appeal (Crl) 1613 of 2005; and Smt. Neera Singh Vs. State Crl. MC 7108/2006.
14. Ld. counsel for R2 and R3 also submitted that atleast against R2 and R3, there were no allegations at all. He pointed out that complainant stayed with them for a very brief period and went to Mumbai to live with her husband.
15. Law regarding framing of charge is well-settled. In Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2008) 2 SCC 561, it was observed as under:
"11. 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 there from, 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."
16. The Court must give its opinion regarding all the offences alleged in the chargesheet. If it is of the opinion that a particular offence is not made Crl. Revision No.05/14 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Narender Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 6 Crl. Revision No.04/14 State Vs. Narender Pal Singh & Ors. out, then it has to be stated in clear and specific terms. It is not a matter of presumption that because the Court has not stated any opinion about a particular offence, it must be taken that the said offence was not made out. This line of thinking is inappropriate.
17. It is evident on the face of record that ld. MM did not consider the offence u/s 420 IPC at all. The whole focus of ld. MM was upon the offences u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. From the impugned order itself, it can be seen that ld. MM did not discuss anything about the offence u/s 420 IPC. Further, she did not discuss the offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Though, cognizance was not taken of the said offence u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, yet the same should have been considered at the time of making decision regarding charges. It appears that the cognizance of offence u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was not taken inadvertently and further ld. MM skipped discussion about the offence u/s 420 IPC as well as Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act again inadvertently. This has rendered the order in question unsustainable. The order suffers from material irregularity and calls for interference.
18. In view of the above, both the revision petitions are hereby allowed and order dt. 23.05.2012 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the ld. MM with directions to hear the parties afresh on the point of charge and take a decision accordingly.
19. A copy of this order be placed with the TCR and TCR be sent back to the concerned court/successor court. Parties are directed to appear before the ld. MM on 31.07.2014.
20. Files of revision petitions be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 11.07.2014 (Sanjay Bansal) ASJ-03/East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Crl. Revision No.05/14 Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. Narender Kumar Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 6 Crl. Revision No.04/14 State Vs. Narender Pal Singh & Ors.