Delhi District Court
Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. vs . State Page 1 Of 9 on 24 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04:NORTH-EAST: KARKARDOOMA:
DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 185/2022
CNR No. DLNE01-004026-2022
1. Devender s/o Sh. Ram Kishan
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
2. Manoj s/o Sh. Ram Kishan
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
3. Ravindra s/o Sh. Ram Kishan
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
4. Arvind Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kishan
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
5. Ram Kishan s/o Sh. Baby Ram
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
6. Mahendri w/o Sh. Ram Kishan
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
7. Kusum w/o Sh. Manoj
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
8. Arti w/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Mogha
r/o H. No. E-624, Gali no. 21,
Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 1 of 9
Ashok Nagar, Loni Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110093 ..................Revisionists
Versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ..................Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the present revision petition filed by the revisionists u/s 397 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 24-09-2022 passed by the court of Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Ld. MM, North-East Distt. KKD, Delhi by virtue of which the Ld. Trial Court has framed charges against all the revisionists for the offences punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC and u/s 4 of DP Act r/w 34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of this case are that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the accused Devender (revisionist no. 1) on 16/04/2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. During the marriage and thereafter, on various special occasions like Holi, Gauna, birth of a child etc., the parents of the complainant had given various gift items/ dowry articles in the form of cash, sweets, clothes, jewelry etc. At the time of marriage, the marriage venue was also changed on the insistence of in-laws of the complainant. They were always unhappy with the gifts/ jewelry items and they have expressed their displeasure through mediator for not giving car during marriage. During her pregnancy, the mother-in-law insisted her to consume some medicine which would help her in giving birth to a male child. Upon her refusal to consume that medicine, the Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 2 of 9 mother-in-law and her sister-in-law (jethani) got her beaten through husband with belt. On 22-06-2017, one girl child was also born out of the wedlock. However, the in-laws taunted the complainant for giving birth to a girl child. It is claimed that jewelery of complainant was also retained by the mother-in-law after about 15 days from the date of marriage. It is alleged that the husband has also retained her educational documents. On 09/05/2018 and 13-05-2018, she was beaten mercilessly by the accused husband and she was asked to bring Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents for purchase of car. On 18-11-2018, at about 10:30 am, she was thrown out of her home by the husband and therefore, she had to sit in a park, in front of house with her daughter as the house was locked by the husband. In this regard, she had made call at 100 number. She reported about the incident at her maternal home also. Her paternal uncle and brother reached there. The call was marked to one ASI Devender who told her that she is the owner of the house and she can break open the lock. When she tried to break open the lock, her father-in-law and husband reached there and they started accusing the paternal uncle and brother of committing theft. On the same day at about 7:30 pm, her husband had beaten her. She was attacked with some sharp object due to which, she sustained injury on her head. She was also thrown from the stairs by the husband, who thereafter fled from there. She made call at 100 number about the incident but the police did not initiate any action citing matrimonial dispute. The accused husband also got one CCTV camera installed in her tenanted home, link of which was also shared with some friend of husband and that ways, the husband of the complainant had also tried to breach her privacy. It is also alleged that the complainant was not provided adequate medical Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 3 of 9 treatment as and when she fell ill. On 22-12-2018, the complainant herself visited the doctor as she was having diarrhea. When she returned home, the husband/ accused had kicked her on her stomach due to which she suffered unbearable pain. Her parents have also reached at that time. When her father asked the husband/ accused as to why he is not getting the complainant treated, the accused/ husband started beating the father and extended threat of implicating him in a police case. The matter was inquired by the CAW cell and after inquiry, the matter was referred to the police station.
3. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has argued that the revisionists and his family members have been illegally entrapped without any substantial and cogent ground. The complainant on her own willingness without any force, undue influence or coercion is taking initiative to falsely implicate the family members of the revisionists. The complainants have embarked illegal attire of tarnishing the justice system as the entire stridhan remains in the possession of complainant that too at the rented accommodation and key in the possession of complainant and it is to be brought on court records. The revisionists are made to suffer at the receiving end and suffered irreparable loss and agony. The revisionist craves the indulgence of the court to seek justice and parity as the other family members have been illegally trapped into this matter and they have nothing to do and prima facie the whole activity of claims and counter claims happened to be at the rented accommodation whereby it is a pure reiterated fact that status of their involvement is not in this very event. It is purely stated that there are no such ingredients that can warrant the other revisionists to face trial. The complainant deliberately and malafidely have Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 4 of 9 infringed the ethical norms of family reunion and moreover the gamut of law purely takes the forms that if a wife deserts her husband and leaves matrimonial home on her own willingness then, she is not entitled for any benefits as stated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. No offence of inflicting cruelty is made out against the revisionists as the complainant was living separately and their names have been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR is totally misconceived and has been filed with malafide intentions. The revisionists have suffered serious mental agony, persistent threats to his limbs and liberty on account of callous conduct of complainant and her family. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionists have relied upon the following judgments of superior courts:
1. Satitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors., 2003 Crl.L.J. 2759
2. Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Crl. A. No. 1512/2010 dated 13-08-2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
3. Anita Rai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Misc. Crl.
Case no. 48916/21 dated 13-06-2022 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore
4. Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State, 138 (2007) DLT 152 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court
5. Anju Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors, Crl. Rev. P. No. 730/16 dated 04-02-2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
6. Chander Kanta Lamba & Ors. Vs. State & Ors, Crl. Rev. No. 267/2008 dated 21-12-2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and
7. Mukesh Rani Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., CRR no. 2665/13 dated 26-08-2013 passed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 5 of 9
4. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for revisionist, Ld. Addl. PP for State and have perused the record.
5. From the perusal of facts and the original complaint which are reiterated in the FIR, it is apparent that the complainant and the revisionist no. 1 were residing separately since April 2018. It is noted that the allegations against all the revisionists except revisionist no. 1, are of taunting only with regard to the insufficient dowry articles and all the allegations are omnibus in nature without any reference to specific date, time and place. However, there are specific allegations against revisionist no. 1 of subjecting the complainant to cruelty for, or in connection with demand of dowry. There is specific allegations that on 09-05- 2018 and 13-05-2018, she was beaten mercilessly by revisionist no. 1 and she was asked to bring Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents for purchase of car. On 18-11-2018 at about 10:30 am, the complainant was thrown out of her home by revisionist no. 1 and thereafter, she had to sit in a park, in front of house with her daughter.
6. There is specific allegation against revisionist no. 6 Smt. Mahendri that she had illegally retained the jewelry articles of the complainant after 15 days of the marriage. It is also alleged that the revisionist no. 1 had also illegally obtained gold and silver istridhan articles of the complainant on the pretext of depositing those articles in the bank locker after the complainant and her husband had shifted to rented accommodation.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer here the case of Neera Singh Vs. The State, 138 (2007) DLT 152 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein it was held that:
"It was held in AIR 1996 (Supreme Court) 67 that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 6 of 9 insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of Section 498A IPC, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e. the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of dowry."
8. In the case of Chander Kanta Lamba & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., Crl. Rev. P. No. 267/2008 decided on 21-12-2009 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that:
"So far as explanation "A"of Section 498A of IPC is concerned, it is willful conduct of such a nature which is likely to drive a women to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life whether mentally or physically which will tantamount to cruelty and certainly this does not fall within the said parameters. In explanation "b" Section 498A of IPC, there must be harassment of the women with a view to coerce her and her relations to unlawful demand and obviously a plain reading of explanation "b" would show that there should be more than one act, only then it will constitute harassment.".
9. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 3363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that, "the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Hence, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases."
10. In Anju Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Crl. Rev. P. 730/2016 decided on 04-02-2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "9. Revisional Court has in my view committed no error in coming to the conclusion that apart from general and omnibus allegations roping in all the relations, there is no material on record to justify framing of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC. It may be noted that charge has already been framed against the husband and he is facing trial.
10. For a charge to be framed, the evidence gathered by the prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence.
11. In the present case apart from bald, omnibus allegations without their being any specifics about date time or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution even during investigation to give rise to grave suspicion against the Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 7 of 9 respondents."
11. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, Crl. Appeal no. 195/22, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 6545/20 dated 08-02-2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general ombibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."
12. In view of the above-stated findings and in light of the rulings of Superior Courts, this court is of the opinion that no prima facie case is made out against all the revisionists except revisionist no. 1 and revisionist no. 6 warranting framing of charge for the offences punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC and u/s 4 of DP Act r/w 34 IPC. However, on the basis of facts emerging from the chargesheet, there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against revisionist no. 1 for the offences punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC, and for the offences punishable u/s 406/34 IPC against revisionist no. 6. All remaining revisionists i.e. revisionist no. 2 to revisionist no. 5 and revisionist no. 7 and 8 are discharged from the proceedings before the ld. Trial Court. All discharged revisionists are directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437A of Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Trial Court on or before the next date of hearing already fixed by the Ld. Trial Court. The order dated 24/09/2022 passed by the court of Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Ld. MM, North-East Distt. KKD, Delhi is hereby partly set aside.
Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 8 of 9Ld. Trial Court is directed to reframe the charge against revisionist no. 1 and revisionist no. 6 in light of above-stated observations. The trial court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court with copy of this judgment for compliance and thereafter, revision file be segregated and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
PANKAJ
Digitally signed by PANKAJ
ARORA
ON 24-07-2023 Location: Karkardooma Court,
Delhi
ARORA Date: 2023.07.25 16:49:27
+0530
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
KARKARDOOMA/24072023
Crl. R. No. 185/2022; Devender & Os. Vs. State Page 9 of 9