Delhi District Court
Deep Shikha vs (1) The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 27 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA : SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) /
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, (NORTH-EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Rev. No. 03/2015
Case ID No. 02402R0035512015
1. Deep Shikha
W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar Sishodia,
R/o 90, Sector 46, Faridabad,
Haryana.
2. Jagdeep Singh,
S/o Sh. Ranchor Singh,
3. Asha Bhadoria,
W/o Jagdeep Singh,
Both R/o Village & P.O. Lakhna,
Distt. Itwa, U.P.
4. Kamlesh
W/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar,
R/o House No. 4/2676, Gali No. 6,
Bihari Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi.
5. Madhu Bala @ Madhu,
W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
R/o House No. 4/2676, Gali No. 6,
Bihari Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi.
6. Vinod Parwal,
S/o Babu Ram Parwa,
R/o Village & P.O. Lakhna,
Distt. Itwa, U.P.
................Appellants
VERSUS
(1) The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
................Respondent
Date of institution : 29.01.2015
Date of reserving order : 10.03.2015
Date of order : 27.05.2015
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 1/19
ORDER
1. This is a criminal revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') against order dated 01.11.2014 in FIR No. 53/11 under section 380/420/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC') PS Bhajanpura whereby charges under section 420/120-B IPC was ordered to be framed against the petitioners.
2. Facts giving rise to the revision petition are as under:
3. On 20.09.2010, Sh. Nepal Singh Shisodia (Hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners vide CC No. 163/10 titled as 'Nepal Singh Shisodia v. Jagdeep Singh Bhadoria & Ors.' alleging therein that the complainant had three sons namely Sanjeev, Rajeev and Sunil Kumar. Sanjeev and Rajeev were already married. The complainant was looking for a suitable match for his youngest son namely Sunil Kumar. The petitioners approached the complainant with the proposal to marry the petitioner No. 1 with Sh. Sunil Kumar. The petitioner No. 3 was shown to the family members of the complainant at his residence at C-8/108, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53. The petitioners assured the complainant that the petitioner No. 1 was unmarried. On the assurance of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was unmarried, the complainant agreed to marry his son Sunil Kumar with the petitioner No. 1.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 2/194. The petitioner No. 1 was married to Sh. Sunil on 16.04.2009 in a farm house in Ghaziabad. In her first visit to her parental house, the petitioner No. 1 had taken 40 tolas gold and 1 kg. silver alongwith complainant's ornaments and ancestral jewellery and 10 tolas gold of his wife with her. The complainant made a complaint of the said incident to the petitioners to which they apologized and assured him to return the gold and ornaments but they have not returned the said articles till date. The petitioners misappropriated the said articles. The petitioner No. 1 returned to his house after some days without the said articles.
5. It was further case of the complainant that on 09.06.2009, the petitioner No. 1 went missing and she could not be traced despite search and finally, Smt. Munni Devi, wife of the complainant lodged a missing report dated 10.06.2009 and FIR No. 218/09 under section 365/34 IPC at PS Bhajanpura on 12.06.2009. On 11.06.2009, the petitioner No. 1 made an application to the Office of DCP, North-East that she was married and she had left the house of the complainant in order to reside with her husband Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam with whom she had married on 29.12.2008 in Arya Samaj Vedic Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 also stated that she was married to Sh. Sunil Kumar by her family members without her consent by pressurising her. She made an application to the Court of Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ld. MM for police protection on 15.06.2009 apprehending threat from her parents.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 3/196. According to the complainant, the petitioner No. 1 made statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 26.06.2009 that she married Praveen Kumar Gautam on 29.12.2008 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar and thereafter, she was forcibly married to Sh. Sunil Kumar on 16.04.2009 and further that she had left the house of Sunil Kumar voluntarily on 09.06.2009 so as to reside with her husband Praveen Kumar Gautam. After recording of statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner No. 1 was allowed to go wherever she desired.
7. The case of the complainant was that the petitioners concealed the factum of first marriage of the petitioner No. 1 from him and wilfully misrepresented the petitioner No. 1 as unmarried. The complainant filed a complaint dated 16.09.2009 at PS Bhajanpura vide DD No. 57B. The police did not take any action on his complaint. The complainant also made complaints to the senior officers of police vide complaint dated 02.11.2009 and 20.11.2009. Thereafter, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioners.
8. On 20.09.2010, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate called the Status Report.
9. SI Ajeet Kumar, PS Bhajanpura conducted an enquiry and submitted the Status Report.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 4/1910. According to the Status Report, the allegations of theft remained unsubstantiated.
11. SI Ajeet Kumar in his Status Report stated that the petitioner No. 1 and his husband Sunil Kumar were living happily and they had no complaint against each other and further that they have one child from their marriage. Sunil Kumar stated that his parents were making complaint against his wife and in-laws as his views were not matching with the views of his parents.
12. On 07.02.2011, SHO, PS Bhajanpura was directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter. Relevant portion of the order is as under:-
"Status report filed by the IO.
Arguments heard. Considering the facts and circumstances and status report filed by the IO I am of the view that there is sufficient ingredients of cognizable offence and complainant himself not in a position to collect all the evidence and to collect the same intervention of police is required. Considering the facts and circumstances and status report SHO PS Bhajanpura is directed to register the FIR within 24 hours and investigate the matter as per law."
13. On 08.02.2011 at 1.10 p.m., FIR No. 53/11 under section 420/380/120-B IPC at PS Bhajanpura was registered and investigation thereof was assigned to SI Alok Kumar.
14. During investigation, SI Alok Kumar recorded statement of the complainant and thereafter, he was transferred and further investigation was assigned to SI Rakesh Kumar.
15. SI Rakesh Kumar investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 5/1916. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the charge-sheet is that the petitioner No. 1 did her graduation from Shyam Lal College and at that time, she was residing with her maternal aunt (mausi) namely Smt. Kamlesh/the petitioner No. 4 and Smt. Madhu Bala/ the petitioner No. 5 in their house bearing H. No. 4/2676, Gali No. 6, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi. During her graduation, the petitioner No. 1 married to Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam on 29.12.2008 in Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal at 2115, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. SI Alok Kumar collected documents relating to the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam and recorded statement of the witnesses. He seized the photographs of the said marriage.
17. According to the charge-sheet, the petitioner No. 2 and 3, and the petitioner No. 6 married the petitioner No. 1 with Sh. Sunil Kumar despite knowing the factum of the first marriage. The petitioner No. 1 made a complaint to DCP, North- East on 11.06.2009 wherein she stated that she married to Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam on 29.12.2008 and further that her parents under the influence of the petitioner No. 6 married her with Sh. Sunil Kumar. In her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner No. 1 also stated to this effect. The petitioner No. 1 was married to Sunil Kumar on 16.04.2009. She left her matrimonial house on 09.06.2009 and her mother-in-law Sh. Munni Devi lodged a missing report vide DD No. 33A dated 10.06.2009 at PS Bhajanpura.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 6/1918. According to the charge-sheet, FIR No. 218/09 under section 365/34 IPC was registered on 12.06.2009 on the complaint of Smt. Munni Devi, mother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1. Statement of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded in the said case on 15.06.2009 and in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on 26.06.2009, the petitioner No. 1 expressed her willingness to stay with Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam and thereafter, she stayed with him.
19. According to the charge-sheet, on 08.07.2009, Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam went Bhola Nath Nagar to collect apparels of the petitioner No. 1 and at that time, the petitioner No. 1 gone missing and Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam lodged a missing report vide DD No. 14A dated 09.07.2009 at PS Farsh Bazar in that regard. During investigation, the petitioner No. 1 stated that she was willing to stay with Sh. Sunil Kumar and they have one son from their wed-lock. Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam filed a W.P. (Crl.) 1197/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the petitioner No. 1 expressed her willingness not to stay with Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam and thereafter, she was allowed to stay wherever she wanted vide judgment dated 16.09.2009. Cancellation report in FIR No. 218/09 has already been accepted by the Court.
20. During the course of investigation, no evidence was found against Sh. Kali Charan and therefore, he was not arrested. The petitioners obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 10.08.2011.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 7/1921. During the investigation, it was found that the Non-Judicial Stamp Papers on which the petitioner No. 1 and Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam submitted their affidavits to Arya Samaj Vedic Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi were not issued on 29.12.2008 by the Treasury. According to the record, the said Non-Judicial Stamp Papers were issued to a Stamp Vendor, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 16.04.2009 from the Treasury. From the record maintained by the Stamp Vendor, the said stamp papers were issued to BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd.
22. According to the charge-sheet, there was no evidence that the petitioner No. 1 stolen anything from the premises of the complainant.
23. According to the charge-sheet, the petitioner No. 1 was married to Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam on 29.12.2008 and thereafter, the petitioners concealed the said marriage despite knowledge and married the petitioner No. 1 with Sh. Sunil Kumar, son of the complainant with malafide intention and thereby, the complainant was induced to marry his son Sh. Sunil Kumar with the petitioner No. 1 and spent the amount in the marriage and as such, the petitioners caused wrongful loss to the complainant.
24. The petitioners were charge-sheeted under section 420/380/120-B/34 IPC.
25. On 24.05.2012, the charge-sheet was filed and the petitioners were summoned.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 8/1926. After hearing the parties to the lis and considering the material on record, the Ld. trial Court passed the order dated 01.11.2014 ('Impugned order'), as under:-
"I have gone through the entire case file including the documents/certified copies on record pertaining to the case FIR No. 218/09, PS Bhajanpura, u/s 365/34 IPC. To narrate the facts briefly, a case FIR No. 218/09 was registered against Mr. Praveen Kumar Gautam on the complaint of Smt. Munni Devi (wife of the complainant herein) regarding the abduction of her daughter-in-law Deep Shikha by the accused Mr. Praveen Kumar Gautam. That matter was investigated by the police and it was revealed that Smt. Deep Shikha has married Mr. Praveen Kumar Gautam with her own free will at Arya Samaj Mandir on 29.12.2008. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the Ld. Link M.M. concerned u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 26.06.2009 and therein also, she has deposed to this effect. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Smt. Deep Shikha has detailed that the factum of her having got married with Praveen Kumar Gautam was told by her to her parents, but despite that her marriage was so fixed with Sunil Kumar and was solemnized on 16.04.2009. She has stated that on 09.06.2009, she has called Mr. Praveen Kumar Gautam and went alongwith him. She also stated that her mother has lodged a false complaint against Mr. Praveen Kumar Gautam.
The statement of other witnesses were also recorded by the IO in that matter (including that of the witnesses to the marriage in question, who have also put their signatures on the certificate of marriage). On the basis of the investigation, untraced report was filed by the IO before the Court (although the fate of that matter is not known).
The perusal of the record also reveals that later on Smt. Deep Shikha has returned to her matrimonial home and it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that Shri Sunil Kumar and Smt. Deep Shikha are happily residing as husband and wife. The father-in-law of Smt. Deep Shikha has lodged this matter falsely against the accused persons for the reasons best known to him.Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 9/19
Considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that by withholding the information regarding the earlier marriage of Ms. Deep Shikha, the accused persons (in conspiracy with each other) has cheated the complainant because had this fact been known to the complainant, he would not have married his son with her. Also, prima facie it appears that there was injury to the reputation of the complainant when these facts came to the public knowledge. So, no case for discharge is made out as there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial against the accused persons in the given facts. However, this Court is of the opinion that no offence under Section 380 IPC is made out against any of the accused persons as no specific details qua the jewellery articles, which were allegedly taken away by accused Deep Shikha (as stated by the complainant) is on record because same was not furnished as such by the complainant to the IO and for that reason, no recovery has been effected from the accused.
In view of the above discussion, charge for the offences under Section 420/120-B IPC is ordered to be framed against the accused persons on next date of hearing.
Put up for framing of charge on 01.04.2015."
27. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners approached this Court on the following grounds:
(a) The factum of marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam is not established and the marriage certificate is a manipulated document.
(b) The petitioner No. 1 was abducted by Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam but he did not take any action against him.
(c) No wrongful loss was caused to the complainant by the petitioners and no wrongful gain caused to them and therefore, offence under section 420 IPC is not made out.
(d) There was no inducement or allurement to the complainant and thus, there was no wrongful loss to the complainant.Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 10/19
(e) The petitioner No. 1 is residing with Sh. Sunil Kumar as his legally wedded wife and a child is born out from their wed-lock. The petitioner No. 1 is living a happy married life with her husband Sh. Sunil Kumar.
(f) There is no allegation that the petitioner No. 2 to 6 fraudulently arranged the marriage with Sh. Sunil Kumar and misappropriated jewellery articles.
(g) The complainant was duly informed about the fraud played by the Praveen Kumar Gautam and thus, there was no concealment of any fact.
28. I have heard Ms. Bhawna Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners, Sh. I.H. Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Nepal Singh Shisodia/the complainant and considered the material on record.
29. Sh. Nepal Singh Shisodia/the complainant has also filed the written arguments on record.
30. Ms. Bhawna Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners submitted that there was no material on record to reach to the conclusion that the petitioners cheated the complainant. She submitted that it was never the case of the complainant that there was any injury to his reputation. She submitted that no offence under section 420/120-B/34 IPC is made out against the petitioners. She submitted that the petitioner No. 1 made statement before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi during chamber hearing in Crl. W.P. 1197/2009 that she wanted to stay with her husband Sh. Sunil Kumar and therefore, she was permitted to stay wherever she wanted. She submitted that the complainant has no locus to file the complainant and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 11/1931. Ms. Bhawna Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in 'Anil Sharma & Ors. v. S.N. Marwaha & Anr.' 55 (1994) DLT 483 in support of her argument that the petitioners have been unnecessarily being dragged by the complainant and even on the basis of the averments mentioned in the complaint, no offence under section 420 and 120-B IPC was made out against the petitioners. She submitted that the complaint has been filed for causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation of the petitioners. She submitted that judicial process must not be permitted to be used as a weapon of oppression and harassment. She submitted that permitting such complaint to proceed in the Court would amount to gross abuse of the process of the law.
32. Sh. I.H. Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. He submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record in the form of marriage certificate, affidavits, complaint dated 11.06.2009 and statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 26.06.2009 to prima facie disclosed that the petitioners deliberately concealed the factum of first marriage from the complainant and thereby, induced him to give his consent for the marriage of his son Sh. Sunil Kumar with the petitioner No. 1 and thereafter, he spent huge amount in the marriage and his reputation in the society also tarnished in this manner. He submitted that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 12/1933. Sh. Nepal Singh Shisodia/the complainant, in his written arguments, has reiterated the complaint dated 11.06.2009 made by the petitioner No. 1 to the DCP, North-East District, Delhi, statement of the petitioner No. 1 under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded in FIR No. 218/09, statement of the petitioner No. 1 under section 164 Cr.P.C. and statement made by the petitioner No. 1 in Petition (Crl.) No. 932/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the petition filed by the petitioner No. 1 for annulment of her marriage with Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam under section 11 and 12 (1) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In his written arguments, he submitted that there are contradictory statements by the petitioner No. 1 before the different authorities and judicial forum and therefore, discharge of the petitioners at this stage is not justified. He submitted that the impugned order is justified and based on the facts.
34. In 'Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr.' (2012) 9 SCC 460; the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India explained the ambit and scope of the revisional power under section 397 of the Cr.P.C., as under:-
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 13/19 invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the IPC."
35. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. Under section 239 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is required to consider the police report and the documents annexed with it and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused if the charge against the accused is groundless. If there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under the Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C., he shall frame a charge against the accused. Once the facts and ingredients of the section exists, then the Magistrate would be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the charge accordingly.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 14/1936. The satisfaction of the Magistrate in relation to the existence of the constituents of the offence and the facts leading to the offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction.
37. At the cost of repetition, for the sake of clarity, it can be stated that the case of the complainant is that the petitioners concealed the factum of first marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with Sh. Praveen Kumar Gautam on 29.12.2008 and induced him to marry his son Sunil Kumar with the petitioner No. 1 on 16.04.2009 and thereby, he suffered wrongful loss on account of the huge amount in the marriage and his prestige in the society was damaged.
38. At the time of marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with Sh. Sunil Kumar on 16.04.2009, the petitioner No. 1 as well as Sh. Sunil Kumar were major. It may be that the complainant had played some role in the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 and Sh. Sunil Kumar but his consent was immaterial as the parties to the marriage were major and competent to take decision about their marriage.
39. The petitioner No. 1 is residing with Sh. Sunil Kumar. They have one child from their wed-lock. Sh. Sunil Kumar has no grievance against the petitioners.
40. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. He cannot be an aggrieved party on account of any action or omission of the petitioners. The complainant had no right in law to file the complaint or institute the case.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 15/1941. Though the complainant has made mention of the fact in his complaints dated 16.09.2009 that he suffered socially and mentally an injury and he has reputation in the society. He has not mentioned any incident whereby his reputation in the society suffered any damage. The allegations regarding the injury to the reputation are general in nature.
42. In his complaint dated 16.09.2009, the complainant made mention of the fact that he spent lakhs of rupees in the marriage but he did not give any statement of the expenses. In his complaint dated 20.11.2009, he did not state the exact figure of the amount spent in the marriage. Even otherwise, this fact would not by itself be sufficient to reach the conclusion that he had suffered any wrongful loss on account of concealment of any fact since, the petitioner No. 1 is living happily with her husband Sh. Sunil Kumar.
43. In the opinion of this Court, even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint are true and correct, no case u/s 420/120-B IPC is made out against the petitioners.
44. In Anil Sharma & Ors. (supra), the complainant/ respondent No. 1 filed a complaint that the accused withheld a vital fact from him that there was a child from the first marriage and because of withholding the information, the complainant was cheated as he married his daughter with the accused. The trial Court summoned the husband and his family members. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 16/1945. Hon'ble High Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the parties, observed as under:-
"8. According to the basic ingredients of Section 420, the act of cheating means that if by an act any person dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person then he would be guilty u/Sec. 420 IPC. In the instant case, there is no question of delivery of any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security. He further submitted that this is not the case where property has been altered or destroyed the whole or any part of the valuable security. Therefore, on the bare reading of the complaint, in toto, no offence u/Sec. 420 IPC can be made out against the petitioners on the basis of the averments of the complaint.
17. The other significant aspect is that a child was born out of this wedlock on 23rd October, 1990. Obviously, the complainant's daughter conceived after 5th August, 1989, the date of knowledge of the fact of alleged concealment. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that there has to be fraudulent and dishonest inducement of the person by deceiving him. In the instant case, there is no such fraudulent or dishonest inducement. Learned Counsel further submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the ingredients of Section 420, IPC are made out in the instant case. Even ingredients of Section 415 IPC are also not made out because in Section 415 IPC in the concluding part of the Section, the following words are used, "and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". In the instant case, even from the averments of the complaint, none of the ingredients of Section 420 IPC have either been incorporated or made out from the averments of the complaint.Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 17/19
17. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 S.C. 1815. In this case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that:
"Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta harass the persons needlessly.
20. The short question which arises and needs to be answered in this case is whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in issuing process on the complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled position of law which has now been crystallized by a large number of judgments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts. By bare reading of the complaint if no ingredients of the offence are not made out, then the Court could not be justified in issuing the process. The order of issuing process ought to be passed after taking extreme care and caution. This is so because serious consequences, implications and repercussions follow on passing such an order and the accused have to undergo the rigmarole of a longdrawn criminal trial. That may mean tremendous harassment of years.
27. The present petitioners have unnecessarily been dragged in this complaint by the complainant. Even on the basis of averments mentioned in the complaint, no offence under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC are made out against the petitioner. The complaint had been filed for causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation of the petitioner. Judicial process ought not to be permitted as any instrument of oppression and needless harassment as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Punjab National Bank's case (supra). The fact developing tendency of falsely implicating all members of the family in criminal cases must be deprecated and effectively curbed. Permitting such complaints to proceed in the Court would clearly amount to total abuse of the process of the Court for extraneous considerations.Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 18/19
46. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint. The complainant was neither made to part the property or any valuable security. There was no dishonest inducement to the complainant to deliver any property or any valuable security. On bare reading of the complaint, no offence under section 420/120-B IPC could be made out against the petitioners. The petitioners were unnecessarily dragged into the complaint by the complainant.
47. The impugned order is patently erroneous and unjustified.
48. The impugned order would occasion miscarriage of justice if not set-aside in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
49. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the petitioners are hereby discharged from offences under section 420/120-B IPC.
50. A copy of this order be sent to Ld. trial Court alongwith trial Court record for information and necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court SANJAY SHARMA on this 27th day of May, 2015. Special Judge NDPS (N/E) ASJ/KKD Courts/Delhi.
Cr. Rev. No. 03/2015 Deep Shikha & Ors. Vs. State Page No. 19/19