Delhi District Court
Ramesh Chand Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 December, 2018
In the court of Additional Session Judge04, District Shahdara,
(Model/Pilot Project Court), Room No.51, Second Floor, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
CNR No.DLSH010072332018 date of institution : 29.10.2018
Crl. Revision No.56/18 decision reserved on : 07.12.2018
I.D. No.276/18 date of decision :15.12.2018
In the matter of
1. Ramesh Chand Sharma
s/o Late Har Prasad Sharma
2. Smt. Madhu Sharma
w/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma
3. Nischal Sharma s/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma
all resident of H.No.RZ C52, Dabri Extension (East)
New Delhi110045 ...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
2. Smt. Jaya Sharma d/o Late V.P. Sharma
w/o Sh. Nischal Sharma, resident of H.No.4/1434,
Gali No.3, Shalimar Park, Shahdara, Delhi ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T [On revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. arising from the order dated 26.09.2018 while framing charge against the petitioners by the court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, Ld. M.M. Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (briefly the trial court) in case FIR No.224/2016 PS Farsh Bazar] Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 1 of 9
1. (Introduction) - What happened, respondent No.2 Smt. Jaya Sharma (complainant) reported the matter to Crime Against Women Cell (CAW) by written complaint registered on 26.11.2015. After detailed inquiry and certain observations and on failure of conciliation by the parties in the Cell, it was referred for registration of FIR, consequently an FIR No.224/2016 PS Farsh Bazar u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against petitioners Ramesh Chand Sharma, Smt. Madhu Sharma and Nischal Sharma (respectively, father in law, mother in law and husband of respondent No.2). After filing the chargesheet, the trial court considered the contentions of both side in order dated 26.09.2018, particularly the petitioners have been kept in column No.11 of the chargesheet, while concluding that charge u/s 498A/406/34 IPC are made out against all of them; the charge was accordingly framed. However, the petitioners/accused are feeling aggrieved by that order and framing of formal charge, that is why the revision petition has been filed.
2.1 (Matrix of the case) - The petitioner No.3 and the respondent No.2 got married on 11.02.2005 and respondent No.2 narrates the allegations in her complainant of 26.11.2015 one after the other from the year 2005 onwards to 21.10.2012 that she was being taunted, misbehaved or not liked by her in laws, pulling her hairs by them and so on as well as her salary was being asked by her husband, she was abused and beaten on the eve of festival, she was asked amount of Rs.4 Lakhs in MarchApril, 2010 by her husband. She was taunted for want of bearing child or petitioner no.3 is okay but not the complainant.
Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 2 of 9In April, 2011 she was beaten by her husband, he asked to transfer her salary in his account. Similarly, she was treated so till October, 2012.
2.2 Whereas the accused persons/petitioners requested the trial court for their discharge that no offence of harassment or of cruelty or of criminal breach of trust is made out in any form, since the respondent No.2 herself left the matrimonial home on 18.11.2007 of her own volition by taking away her all belongings (except four bed sheets and some used clothes), which she had written on 18.11.2007 duly witnessed by her brother. There was no scope at all of criminal breach of trust or of cruelty. The petitioner No.1 and 2 had started living at Jugal Vihar Mandir, Vrindavan, Mathura (U.P.), the concerned official of management has also furnished an affidavit, during inquiry/investigation, that they are living in Vrindavan (U.P.), therefore, the allegations of 2007 onward are all manufactured allegations and there was no occasions for petitioner No.1 and 2 or for petitioner No.3 to abuse, harass or to taunt the respondent No.2, who was already living with her parents after deserting the house on 18.11.2007, as she was intending to continue her job from her parents house. There was also an inquiry by the CAW Cell, which also finds mention those facts in its report that petitioner nos.1 and 2 started living in temple in Virndavan from April 2010 onwards.
The trial court failed to consider all these aspects by feeling constrained that the petitioners have been kept in column No.11 of chargesheet by the Investigating Officer. Although material record of affidavit an acknowledgment of all articles taken away by her on Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 3 of 9 18.11.2007 and she got prepared her the election identity card dated 20.10.2008 showing her parents address, she has been living at her parents house and there was no occasion for any such treatment as house of petitioner no.3. The impugned order has been passed by the trial court without considering the aspects on record and the trial court believed in the concocted complaint, by inferring that incidents have also happened before 2010 if the case of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 of the year 2010 is to be believed.
This is the blend of facts and plea of petitioners, which has been reiterated in the grounds of revision petition, and contended during submissions by Sh. Surender Bharti, Advocate for petitioners, particularly that there was no complaint by the respondent No.2 from 2005 to 25.11.2015, the petitioner No. 1 and 2 have been residing at Vrindavan from April, 2010 to 02.07.2018, the respondent No.2 took all her istridhan/articles, gift etc. on 18.11.2007 and since then she is residing in her parents house, all these circumstances do not constitutes offence of sections 498A/406/34 IPC. There was never any complainant before such after thought complaint of 26.11.2005.
2.3 Whereas Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has reservations that the contentions being raised are subject matter of trial and appreciation of evidence since at the stage of framing of charge, it is to be seen whether charge is made out as a prima facie view of facts and circumstances of the case. Secondly, the complainant/respondent No.2 was treated with cruelty and she was also harassed after marriage, which continued lateron, therefore, it will not exonerate the petitioners, Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 4 of 9 even if the possible defence of petitioner No.1 and 2 lived at Vrindavan for some period from the year 2010, the allegations are also of period prior to the period of year 2007. The complainant in her detailed complaint compiled the allegations from time to time and in view of the same, there is no flaw in the findings given by the trial court. Since there is no merit in the revision petition as well as no infirmity in the impugned order or formal charge framed against the petitioner, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
3.1 (Findings with reasoning) The submissions of both the sides are considered inclusive of the record of chargesheet, duly accompanied with statement of witnesses recorded during investigation, there is one more witness namely Smt. Pushpa wife of Sh. Ved Prakash, she is mother of the complainant, besides the relevant provisions of law of sections 406/498A IPC and procedural law of section 239/240 of Cr.P.C. 1973 (in respect of warrant trial cases by Magistrate) dealing with the circumstances as to when accused shall be discharged or charge shall be framed.
At the time of framing of charge, it is to be seen whether there is prima facie sufficient material to proceed further in the case and the facts on record makes out that offence has been committed, then chage is to be framed and not otherwise visavis there should be such material against each individual if there are more than one accused.
2.4 With this background of facts and features of the case, substantive and procedural law, the following conclusions are drawn : Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 5 of 9 (A1) firstly, in the chargesheet or the inquiry by CAW Cell, there is collection of facts or of record, which are chargesheet is filed, all the petitioners have been kept in column No.11 as observed by the trial court, (A2) such record collected by CAW Cell and also by the Investigating Officer, are part of the chargesheet, one of the document is of 18.11.2007 by respondent No.2/complainant that she is taking away all her belongings except four bed sheet and some her used clothes; there is no adverse police report about this fact. Later, a mattress, 11 books and a photo were handed over to the complainant, vide seizure memo cumhanding over memo dated 03.09.2016.
It reflects many facts, firstly the complainant left of her own volition and took her all the belongings with her while leaving behind her used clothes and bed sheets and at later point of time, the articles were handed over to her, if a few articles were left by her of her own and her other belongings were already taken by her, meaning thereby neither there was any entrustment of specific article to particular accused nor it is so mentioned nor there was any occasion for criminal breach of trust against any of the petitioners, as to when she asked for articles or which articles and from whom or when & who refused it; reliance can be placed on Sukhbir Jain Vs. State, 1993 JCC 91 'wherein it was held that to constitute offence u/s 406 IPC, there must be clear and specific allegations that the accused was entrusted with some property by the complainant and the accused dishonestly misappropriated the same or Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 6 of 9 converted to his own use or the accused refused to return back these articles, when demanded by the complainant', (A3) from the conclusion drawn in (A1) and (A2) above, it does not make out charge u/s 406 IPC against any of the petitioners/accused, the material available in the chargesheet has not been considered by the trial court even from prima facie view, visavis all of a sudden filing of the complaint in the year 2015 with the list of articles, is contrary to the respondent No.2's own record of 18.11.2007, which was witnessed by her brother and (A4) the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar of Jugal Vihar Mandir, Vrindavan, Mathura, (U.P.) is matter of record of chargesheet and there is no adverse report in the chargesheet with regard to that affidavit or that the petitioner No.1 and 2 had not been residing from April, 2010 onwards as devotees in the temple and this affidavit of 08.04.2016;
(B1) there are two sets of circumstances with regard to petitioner No.1 and 2 that they started living in Vrindavan from April, 2010 visavis the respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home on 18.11.2007 while taking away her belongings and no where in the entire complaint, it is mentioned as to when she came back and started living with the petitioner No.3, otherwise there is no fact that while living the petitioner No.3, the other petitioner No.1 and 2 also came and started living together with the respondent No. 2, (B2) as appearing in the original complaint, the complainant has talked about beatings to her or asking of the amount so that her Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 7 of 9 husband/respondent No.3 may open the office or she was being slapped by her husband on petty issues or with regard to her salary or the respondent No.2/complainant was given cheque of Rs.29,363/ by her in laws (i.e. petitioner No.1 and 2 herein), since she had given Rs.50,000/ in 2006 to her fatherinlaw for investment in shares. In order to constitute cruelty or harassment against accused persons, there should be specific allegations against each individual, but from the narration given by respondent No.2 it is not spelling out against the petitioner No.1 and 2, however, further narration in the complaint are surrounding in respect of petitioner No.3, (B3) thus, for want of specific allegations against petitioner No.1 and 2 at any point of time, with regard to cruelty or harassment defined/explained in section 498A IPC, it does not make out charge against the petitioner No.1 and 2, (B4) in Hukami Devi & others Vs State of Harayana 1992 (1) RCR 377 it was held for the purpose of allegation of offence u/s 498A IPC, the allegations have to be specific against each and every accused, general allegations of cruelty in terms of section 498A IPC have been deprecate (B5) the trial court took a view that charge against them is make out because the investigating officer has kept them in column no.11, whereas it does not constraint the trial court to assessed the facts from the record to form appropriate opinion, and (B6) so far petitioner No.3 is concerned, there are prima facie allegations appearing as it is appearing that there was association of Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 8 of 9 respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.3, and those aspects are matter of trial and it does not require any interference so far charge u/s 498A IPC is concerned against the petitioner No.3.
2.5 Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.09.2018 and framing of charge u/s 406/34 IPC against the petitioner No.1, 2 and 3 are set aside and order dated 26.09.2018 and framing of charge u/s 498A/34 IPC against petitioner No.1 and 2 is also set aside. Consequently, the order and charge u/s 498A IPC is left for trial against petitioner No.3 Nischal Sharma.
3. In view of the above, the petitioner No.1 and 2 stand discharged, their personal bond and surety bond are also discharged and cancelled, they will furnish bond u/s 437A Cr.P.C. within one week from today. The petitioner No.3 is discharged from charge u/s 406/34 IPC. He will appear before the trial court of charge u/s 498A IPC on scheduled date and trial court may frame an amended charge in view of the present scenario.
4. The revision petition is partly allowed. Copy of this judgment be sent to trial court with record.
Announced in open court today Saturday, Agrahayana 24, Saka 1940 (Inder Jeet Singh) Additional Session Judge04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi 15.12.2018 Digitally signed by INDERJEET SINGH INDERJEET Location: Shahdara District, Karkardooma SINGH Courts Date: 2018.12.15 17:05:00 +0530 Crl. Revision No.56/18 Ramesh Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. Page 9 of 9