Delhi District Court
Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta And Ors vs State on 5 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
Cr. Rev No. 67/2020
CNR No. : DLST01-001754-2020
1. Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta @ Rajnikant Gupta
Son of Shri Late Raja Ram Gupta
2. Mrs. Rita Rajnikant Gutpa @ Rita Gupta
Wife of Rajnikant Gupta
3. Amit Rajnikant Gupta @ Amit Gupta
Son of Shri Rajnikant Gupta
All having Residence at:-
A-401, Golden Willows
Vasant Gardens, Mulund (West)
Mumbai-400080 .........REVISIONISTS
VERSUS
State of Delhi ........ RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.02.2020
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 11.01.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. filed against order dated 22.11.2019, passed by Ld Trial court whereby charge for offence punishable U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was framed against the revisionists.
2. The facts in brief of the revision are that the revisionists are residents of Mumbai. On the complaint of PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Mrs. Anisha Aggarwal (wife of Amit Rajnikant Gupta), the instant FIR no. 168/2010 was registered on 12.07.2010 at Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PS Neb Sarai, New Delhi u/s 498A/406/34 IPC against PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 16:51:08 +0530 Amit Rajnikant Gupta (husband), Rajni Kant Rajaram Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 1 of 12 Gupta (father in law) and Mrs. Rita Rajnikant Gupta (Mother in law). As per the averments, the marriage of revisionist no. 3 and complainant got solemnized on 19.04.2007 in Mumbai as per Hindu rites and a son namely Aryan was born on 27.05.2008. The complainant is stated to have last resided at her matrimonial home up till 19.12.2008. Thereafter, over one year later, the complainant filed a complaint with the Women Cell on 30.12.2009.
3. On the basis of allegations made in complaint, instant FIR under section u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against Amit Rajnikant Gupta (husband), Rajni Kant Rajaram Gupta (father in law) and Mrs. Rita Rajnikant Gupta (Mother in law) and the matter was investigated.
4. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and Ld. MM on the basis of material available on record summoned the revisionists. Thereafter, Ld. Trial Court found sufficient material to frame charge against the revisionists u/s 498A/406/34 IPC on 22.11.2019 after passing a detailed order on 20.07.2019 with following observations:-
" it is always to be remembered that at the stage of framing of charge, evidence of prosecution has not yet commenced. PURSHOTTAM Accordingly, only the sufficiency of ground for proceedign against PATHAK the accused on a general consideration of material placed before the court by the investigating police officer are to be considered. Digitally signed Truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution by PURSHOTTAM proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Same PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 standard in appreciation of evidence as would be applied at trial to 16:51:17 +0530 find whether accused is guilty is not exactly to be applied at the Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 2 of 12 stage of consideration of framing of notice. At that stage even a very strong suspicion founded on materials before the court which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence (see Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal V. Anil Kumar Bhuja AIR 1980 SC 52; Nitaipada Das Vs. Sudarsan Sarangi & Anr. 1991 CriLJ 3012)
07. Further, it is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, only the police report as referred to in Section 173 Cr.P.C. is required to be referred to be seen. This aspect of the law has been adverted to in State Anti-coruption Bureau, Hyderabad and Another V. P. Suryaprakasam; 1999 SC (crl.) 373 where considering the scope of Section 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C. It was held that at the time of framing of charge, what the trial Court is required to, and can consider, are only the police report referred to under Section 173 of the Code and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that (emphasis supplied). This position of law was reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orrissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359. Therefore, what is crystal clear is that at the stage of the framing of charge, the Court is not at all to look into the possible defences of the accused or the merits of the defences likely to be taken up by the accused. This aspect of framing of charge is to be considered solely from the point of view of police report as referred to in section 173 Cr.P.C.
In the case in hand, there is prima-facie material to frame charge against the accused persons. Accused persons allegedly committed acts of cruelty against the complainant and retained her istridhan entrusted to them and did not return the same despite repeated requests. There are various allegations regarding cruelty, dowry demand and retention of stridhan by all accused and several material against accused persons for framing charge. I find no merit in the submission of Ld. Counsel for accused persons and the judgments relied upon are not squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accused persons are stated to have acted in furtherance of their common intention over a period of time.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, material on record and submissions of Ld. APP for the State, I find that there are PURSHOTTAM sufficient grounds in the present case which disclose a prima facie PATHAK case for offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC against accused persons.
Accordingly, charge for the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC be framed against the accused persons....."Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 16:51:24 +0530 Cr. Rev 67/2020
Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 3 of 12
5. Being aggrieved by the order of framing of charge dated 22.11.2019, revisionists have preferred this revision petition on following grounds:-
i. that the Ld. MM ignored the fact that there are no instances of harassment of the complainant at the hands of revisionists, with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by them, so as to attract the provisions of Section 498A.
ii. That the allegations regarding offence u/s 406 IPC are vague and general in nature as it is clear from the FIR that the complainant has brought all her jewellery back to Delhi and also there is no averment as to whether the complainant ever took her jewelry from Delhi to her matrimonial home in Mumbai.
iii. that the revisionists are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and there are only general, vague, indefinite, inconclusive and omnibus statements leveled in the FIR, which cannot form the basis of registering any charge against any of the revisionists.
iv. that the entire evidence collected by the prosecution, including the charge sheet and documents, does not make out a prima facie case either under Section 498A or under Section 406 IPC or under any provision of law against the revisionists.
PURSHOTTAM 6. Ld. Counsel for revisionists argued on the line of PATHAK grounds as taken in instant revision petition. He argued Digitally signed by that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law in passing the PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 16:51:32 +0530 Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 4 of 12 impugned order as mere demand without harassment or mere harassment without being coupled with any demand would not fall under the definition of cruelty as set out under Section 498A IPC. It was further argued that the alleged offence under section 406 IPC is not made out against the revisionists for which there is no specific material on record. On the strength of these arguments Ld. counsel for revisionists has relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions:-
(i) Shakuntala vs State of Delhi 139 (2007) DLT 178 (2007) ILR 1 Delhi 1005.
(ii) Raj Kumar Khanna vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 95 (2002) DLT 147 (DB) (Delhi).
(iii) Neelu Chopra and Ors vs Bharti 2010 CRI. L.J. 448, (2009) 10 SCC 184, (2009) 14 SCR 1074.
(iv) Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors (2008) 2 SCC561.
(v) Neera Singh vs The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors 138 (2007) DLT 152.
(vi) Yogesh vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 2991.
(vii) Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. Vs State and Ors 2008 II AD (Delhi) 586.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
(viii) P. Vijayan vs State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 2010 SC Digitally signed 663, (2010)2SCC 398.
by PURSHOTTAMPATHAK 7. Per contra, Ld. APP for state argued that there is no Date: 2024.04.05 16:51:40 +0530 infirmity in the impugned order as the same has been Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 5 of 12 passed keeping in view the facts and material available on record and therefore the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.
9. Since the statutory provision of section 498A IPC has an important bearing in the present matter, therefore, same is being reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience :-
" Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code :-
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) 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
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
10. On the basis of following instances as narrated by complainant, order for framing charge u/s 498AIPC was passed:-
(Before marriage)
(i) In the Roka ceremony parents of complainant spent PURSHOTTAM Rs. 31,000/- and gave Rs. 2,50,000/- as cash and a gold PATHAK chain to the husband.Digitally signed
by (ii) various jewelry items and gifts were given to family PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 members and relatives of husband. 16:51:48 +0530 Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 6 of 12
(iii) five lac was given in cash as shagan (After marriage)
(i) The complainant was forced to use her credit card on various occasions for spending money for family members and friends of her husband but her husband never returned the money.
(ii) Her husband took all the money which complainant has received as shagan.
(iii) Her husband forced her to make 2 fixed deposits of Rs. 30,000/ and Rs. 40,000/ and also made her put Rs. 51,000/ in a bank locker which he withdrew within a few days.
(iv) Whenever complainant declined to use her credit card or give cash, her husband used to beat her.
(v) Her husband and father in law deprived her from the opportunity to earn a livelihood.
(vi) In June 2007, her in-laws asked her to bring Rs. 51,000/ cash, fruits, dry fruits and 12 silver glasses on the occasion of 2 festivals, the Namani Ekadasi and Basara.
(vii) On the occasion of Teez her in laws asked her parents to bring 1 lac cash, 3 jewellery sets, sarees and suits.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
(viii) Her in laws also demanded numerous items on occasion of Mata ki chowki, Karwa chowth and Diwali.
Digitally signed by11. As applicability of Section 498 A IPC is concerned, there PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 16:51:57 +0530 is nothing in complaint showing willful conduct of Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 7 of 12 revisionists of harassment of complainant at their hands with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by them so as to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC. The demand for dowry, if any was made prior to solemnization of marriage, the status of revisionist Amit Rajnikant Gupta and complainant Mrs. Anisha Aggarwal was not that of husband and wife at the relevant time. The statutory provisions of Section 498A IPC are very much clear as the same are attracted only in case the cruelty (as defined under said provision) is committed by husband or by any of his family members. If the allegations such as beating by husband and misbehaviour on the part of father in law and mother in law, made by complainant is tested upon the touchstone of aforesaid statutory principles, I am of the considered view that no charge under section 498A IPC is made out against respondents in the instant case. Harassment to constitute cruelty must have a nexus with the demand of dowry. Harassment by itself is not a cruelty unless there is demand of dowry and cruelty is a consequence of that demand. Even in the E mails and messages exchanged between the parties, there is no reference of any cruelty meted out to the complainant at PURSHOTTAM PATHAK the hands of revisionists for not fulfilling their demands.
There is nothing to substantiate that the said harassment was with a view to coercing her to bring the demanded Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK money.
Date: 2024.04.05 16:52:04 +053012. All the other allegations as made by complainant/revisionist in the complaint does not come Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 8 of 12 within the ambit of cruelty as defined under section 498A IPC and therefore, I am of the considered view that no offence u/s 498 A is made out against the revisionists.
13. Now coming to the offence U/s 406 IPC, As rightly pointed out by Ld counsel for revisionists, only general allegations have been made by the complainant against the revisionists. The complainant has alleged that she gave pendant to her mother in law and also some jewellery to her husband and in laws on 02.12.2007, when she was at her parents house in Delhi. It is unbelievable that complainant gave her jewellery items to revisionists on the pretext of keeping it safe, when same was more safe at her parents house as she was not having good relation with revisionist, since the beginning of marriage. It also appears from the supplementary chargesheet that both the lockers were in the name of complainant and the same were last operated on 22.08.2008, the day when complainant left for Delhi. In my considered view, the facts as alleged by complainant do not reveal that at any point of time, the complainant made entrustment of her jewellery, to the said revisionists or the same were later on misappropriated by the latter with dishonest intention. The necessary ingredients of Section 406 IPC are conspicuously missing in the instant case.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK 14. Further, even if it is assumed that there was an entrustment, then also, I am of the considered view that Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM only general and vague allegations have been made PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 16:52:11 +0530 without elaborating upon the date, time and place when Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 9 of 12 each of the articles were handed over. The details of said stridhan i.e. the number or the weight of jewellery articles, the receipt etc is also conspicuously missing in the instant case. Therefore, in such an eventuality, it would be unsafe to hold that a grave suspicion arises against the said revisionists so as to charge them for offence under Section 406 IPC.
15. In my view, only vague and general allegations have been made by the complainant in support of offences under Section 498A/406 IPC. The allegations are general and omnibus and do not give rise to any grave suspicion against any of the said revisionists. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 2022 SCC Online SC 162 (Crl. Appeal No. 195/2022 decided on 08.02.2022).
16. Though it can be argued that on the basis of the statement of complainant, a suspicion arises against the respondents, however it is a settled law that mere suspicion shall not suffice for framing charge against any accused and the test is that of 'grave suspicion'. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors. , AIR 1979 SC 366, wherein it was held that the Court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the PURSHOTTAM limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case PATHAK against the accused is made out or not. It has been further Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date:
held that where the materials placed before the Court 2024.04.05 16:52:19 +0530 Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 10 of 12 disclosed a grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion, but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. It is a settled law that the presumption howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. Relevant portion of the afore-mentioned judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouth- piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, PURSHOTTAM the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before PATHAK the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence Digitally signed by as if he was conducting a trial."
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 16:52:27 +0530 Cr. Rev 67/2020Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 11 of 12
17. If the present case is tested upon the touchstone of settled principles of law, I am of the considered view that no grave suspicion arises against revisionists, so as to charge them for offences under section 498A/406 IPC.
18. The present revision stands allowed. The impugned order thereby for framing charges against revisionists for offences u/s 498A/406/34 IPC stands set aside.
19. Accordingly revisionists are discharged in the instant case for offences u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
20. All the revisionists are directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 30,000/ with one surety of like amount in terms of section 437A CrPC to the satisfaction of trial court.
21. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial court along with copy of judgment.
22. Copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. counsel forthwith.
23. Revision petition be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2024.04.05 16:52:39 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2024 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 12 signed pages) Cr. Rev 67/2020 Rajnikant Raja Ram Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Page 12 of 12