Delhi District Court
Devinder Bedi vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI02, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr. Revision No. 07/2018
In the matter of:
Devinder Bedi
R/o House No. 983,
Sector 9, Panchkula,
Haryana.
.....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of NCT of Delhi
2. Mrs. Simrat Bedi,
61/25 Manekshaw Marg,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 11.01.2018
Date of Arguments : 18.12.2018
Date of Decision : 18.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide revision petition against the order CR No. 7/18 1 of 9 07.01.2017 dated 25.10.2017 passed by Ld. MM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, vide which the Ld. MM has ordered to frame charge under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2017, petitioner has filed the present revision petition on the grounds that from the perusal of the complaint given by the complainant the necessary ingredients which make out the offence under Section 406/498A/34 IPC are not present. The complainant herself in her statement has admitted that there are no bills or receipts of the jewellery gifted by her parents. No jewellery or articles were recovered and no locker or any gift was identified by the police during the course of investigation nor there is any evidence on record indicating the existence of the said gifts that have been kept by the petitioner. It is mentioned that in the present case the ingredients of Section 406 IPC are not present. The basic requirement to bring home an accusation under Section 405 IPC for which Section 406 is the charging section, is to prove conjointly (i) entrustment of property and (ii) whether the accused with dishonest intention misappropriated or converted the said property to his own use to detriment of the person who entrusted it. There is no allegation in the complaint that any jewellery or cash was entrusted or otherwise came under the custody or possession of the petitioner. There is no specific CR No. 7/18 2 of 9 07.01.2017 instance as to when the petitioner has demanded and the jewellery was entrusted to the petitioner. There is no allegation or any statement which indicate any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to misappropriate or converted to her own use the jewellery and cash, even if it was entrusted to her, therefore, no charge under Section 406 IPC is made out. As per Section 498A IPC the allegations of harassment have to be of a nature that either (a) to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause any injury grave enough to endanger her life and limb, or (b) harassment which is with a view to coerce the woman or her family with a demand of dowry. In the statement of the complainant there is no instance of her having suffered any grave injury or attempting suicide because of the actions of the petitioner or her husband. Even after the comprehensive investigation, the police is not able to discover any incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The police has rightly named the petitioner in Column No. 12 of the chargesheet. Ld. Trial Court has given no reason while summoning the petitioner. It is prayed the revision petition be allowed and order dated 25.10.2017 be set aside.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 at length and perused the records of this court as well as of Trial Court very carefully.
CR No. 7/183 of 9 07.01.2017 Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued on the lines of revision petition. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 25.10.2017 and revision petition be dismissed.
4. Perusal of the file reveals that criminal law was set into motion when the complainant has given a complaint to the police. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed in the Court. The complainant in her complaint given to the police has categorically leveled the following allegations against the petitioner :
(i) That her mother in law force her to part with jewellery silver items and valuables such as two expensive gold plated watches and cash that were presented to her by her relatives.
(ii) That her mother in law has kept the jewellery in the locker with her younger son.
(iii) That her mother in law has been repeatedly harassing her to return the jewellery or to face dire consequences.
(iv) That she has being taunted by her parents in law on her inability to have children.
(v) That her mother in law got very angry and verbally abused her.
(vi) That her mother in law taunted her that her presence in their CR No. 7/18 4 of 9 07.01.2017 house was evil and inauspicious since she had already declared her "barren" (Baanjh).
(vii) That when her parents in law heard raising voice of her husband, they both rushed into the room and joined him in berating her of being barren and said that her presence shall bring back luck to the family and that she should not attend the auspicious occasion. They said that she was from a family beggars (Bheekmange). They told her that this was their sons house and she should do exactly like they says and asked parents to send the money. After this, she was allowed to attend no other wedding function, under the pretext that she was very sick.
(viii) That her mother in law encourages her husband to abuse and ill treat her.
(ix) That in 2010 her fathers pension was revised and an amount of approx. Rs. 4.5 to 5 lakhs was given to him in pension arrears and when her husband came to know of this he started pressuring her to ask him for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs which he intended to pay as payment to book a flat in Zirakpur, Punjab. When she told him that this money is intended to be used for renovation of her parents house, he punched her in the chest and threatened her that he will throw her out of the house if she failed to comply by his wishes. This happened CR No. 7/18 5 of 9 07.01.2017 in her marital home in Panchkula when her mother in law was present and she was a witness to this incident since it happened in the dinning room of the house at meal time.
(x) That she was denied the jewellery by her mother in law in presence of her husband who then turned violent and pushed her forcefully into the wall and said that people like her do not deserve to wear expensive jewellery.
(xi) That she had been told by her mother in law, husband's brother and his wife that she was starting to be a burden on them, that she should leave their son/brother alone while there was still time for him to marry again and have children which they stated was his right.
(xii) That her husband and his mother taunt and insult her, both in public and private.
(xiii) That her husband, his mother, brother's wife and Sheeba Bedi are continuing with their life going sightseeing (posting pictures on Face book) and cracking marriage jokes on Facebook.
(xiv) That her mother in law has already started bad mouthing to her in laws, probably as per their scripted plan. She told her husband's Mamiji that even though Simrat is in Doom Dooma with her son, he has to eat from the officer mess.
(xv) That her mother in law soundly abused her mother.
CR No. 7/186 of 9 07.01.2017
5. In the present case the complainant has specifically averred in her complaint and she has leveled specific allegations of harassment and cruelty and of dowry demand against the petitioner.
6. The perusal of the Trial Court Record further reveals that a DD No. 46B dated 15.08.2012, PS Delhi Cantt. is also annexed with the chargesheet vide which the intimation was given about quarrel between the complainant and her husband and also receipt of injury by the complainant. There is also complaint dated 23.08.2012 on the Trial Court Record addressed to The ACP, CAW, Dwarka Cell wherein the complainant has leveled specific allegations against the petitioner about the physical assault for lack of dowry and lack of children in the marriage and forcibly taking of her Streedhan including jewellery by the present petitioner and her husband. During the investigation supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded and statement of sister of the complainant was also recorded. I am of the view that the complainant has leveled specific allegation against the petitioner.
7. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments titled as "Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and CR No. 7/18 7 of 9 07.01.2017 Anr." AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 204, "Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors." passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court and "Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" 2011 Cri. L. J. (Supp) 540. I have perused these judgments with utmost regard but these judgments are not applicable in view of the above mentioned specific allegations against the petitioner. I am of the view that Ld. Trial Court has rightly ordered to frame charge against the petitioner. Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioner.
8. No cogent or convincing reason is disclosed entitling discharge of the petitioner. Further, at the stage of framing of Charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The Apex Court in a number of cases had held that at the stage of framing the charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by the court is not required; nor the adequacy of the evidence can be seen at this stage as it would amount to premature appreciation of evidence. The same view has been held by their Lordship in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl.L.J.746 and Omwati Vs. State through Delhi Admn,. 2001 (2) CR No. 7/18 8 of 9 07.01.2017 Crimes 59.
9. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that Ld. MM has rightly ordered to frame charge u/s 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by Ld. MM. Revision petition filed by the petitioner is without any merits and same is hereby dis missed. TCR be sent back with copy of the judgment. Revision file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Court (N.K. Malhotra)
on 18.12.2018. Spl. Judge, CBI02,
New Delhi District, PHC.
NARESH
KUMAR
MALHOTRA
Digitally signed by
NARESH KUMAR
MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.18
16:37:37 +0530
CR No. 7/18
9 of 9
07.01.2017