Delhi District Court
Pushpanjali vs State on 4 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04:CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI: DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-012532-2024
CR No. 316/2024
Pushpanjali
W/o. Late Sh. Naveen Kumar
D/o. Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o. 767, Kundewalan,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-06.
...... Revisionist
Vs.
1. State of NCT of Delhi
2. Sh. Ganga Sharan Bhaskar (Father in law)
S/o. Not Known
3. Smt. Sharda Rani (Mother in law)
W/o. Sh. Ganga Sharan Bhaskar
4. Sh. Yogesh Kumar (Brother in law)
S/o. Sh. Ganga Sharan Bhaskar
5. Smt. Sangeeta (Sister in law)
W/o. Sh. Yogesh Kumar
6. Sh. Sachin Kumar Bhaskar (Brother in law)
S/o. Sh. Ganga Sharan Bhaskar
7. Smt. Upasana
D/o. Sh. Ganga Sharan Bhaskar
CR No. 316/2024
Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 1 of 13
All Resident of :
3a/313, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P.
...... Respondents
Date of institution of Revision : 14.08.2024
Date on which order reserved : 04.03.2025
Date on which order pronounced : 04.03.2025
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist u/s. 397 Cr. P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 passed by Sh. Anuj Kumar Singh, ld. ACMM.-02, Central, THC, Delhi in FIR No. 146/2015, PS Hauz Qazi, in case titled as 'State vs. Ganga Sharan and Ors.' whereby vide which the application u/s. 216 Cr. P.C. of the complainant seeking framing of additional charge u/s. 498A/406/420/468/471/341 IPC was dismissed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to decide the present revision petition are that on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the present FIR 146/2015 PS Hauz Qazi u/s. 406/498A/34 IPC was lodged on 24.04.2015 against the R-2 to R-8.
3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the ld.
Trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2016 framed notice against accused Yogesh Kumar, Sangeeta and Sharda for the offence CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 2 of 13 u/s. 323/34 IPC and in the alternative, u/s. 352/34 IPC and also framed separate notice against Yogesh Kumar for the offence u/s. 341 PC, while discharging all the accused persons for the offences u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC.
4. Against the said order, one criminal revision petition no.
58/2017 was filed by the revisionist against the accused persons which was dismissed by the ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 31.01.2017. The relevant operative para of the said order is as follows :-
9. Under Explanation (a) of Section 498 A IPC, the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Explanation (b) of Section 498-A IPC provides that cruelty means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a vie 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.
Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section. Pre-condition for attracting the provisions of explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC.
10. On perusal of the trial court record, this court finds no merits in the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. This court is in the CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 3 of 13 agreement with the view of the learned trial court that there are no specific allegations against any of her in laws as regards harassment after she had shifted to the second floor with her husband or after the death of her husband for demand of dowry or about non-fulfillment thereof or coercing her and her parents to meet their unlawful demand of property. There is also nothing to show as to which articles were her istridhan article. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner had entrusted any of her istridhan articles with any of the accused persons or that despite her demand they had failed to returned the property back to her and that there is no allegation of entrustment of the of the article after she had shifted on the second floor. Thus, Prima facie, no case u/s 498-A and u/s 406 IPC is made against the respondents No. 2 to 8. This court finds no illegality, impropriety or procedural irregularity in the impugned order.
No interference is, thus warranted therein. In the result, Revision petition is dismissed. TCR be sent back with a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned ...... ."
5. Thereafter, the revisionist approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (Crl.) No. 1992/2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of submissions made by the State which were as follows :-
"Ld. ASC for the State/R-1 submits that in this case, charge-sheet in respect of the offences punishable u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC has already been filed and subsequently, another complaint was made by the petitioner which is being investigated and if required, supplementary charge-sheet shall be filed."
6. The revisionist filed an application before the ld. Trial Court and vide order dated 07.10.2020, the ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments, kept the application pending to be decided at future stage. The revisionist did not pursue that CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 4 of 13 application before the ld. Trial Court thereafter at any point of time.
7. The revisionist further filed an application u/s. 216 Cr. PC.
for framing additional charge u/s. 406/420/468/471/498A/34 IPC and vide impugned order, the ld. Trial Court dismissed the said application. The impugned order is reproduced below for reference :-
"CIS No. 296762/2016STATE VS. GANGA SHARAN & Ors.
FIR. No. 146/2015
PS (Hauz Qazi)
09.05.2024
Present: As in the main ordersheet.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application u/s 216 CrPC filed on behalf of the complainant for framing additional charge under Section 406/420/468/471/498A/34 IPC. Arguments have been heard.
2. It is stated in the present application that the complainant through RTI came to know that three flats i.e. Unnati Fortune World, B-117, Sector 67, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., Corporation Office, H-121, Sector 63, Noida, U.P and Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd., C-1, Sector 3, Wave City, Noida, U.P. were in the custody of her late husband Naveen Kumar and the accused persons had cheated the complainant and transferred these flats in their names while committing the cheating and fraud. Hence, the present application.
3. Submissions heard. Record perused.
4. Vide the present application u/s 216 CrPC, the present complainant is trying to add separate and distinct offences in the present complaint which were not the part of the original complaint, however the CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 5 of 13 applicant/complainant may pursue her legal remedies separately and these offences cannot be made part of the present complaint. Hence, I find no merits in the present application and same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be given dasti to all concerned.
(Anuj Kumar Singh) ACMM-2/Central/THC/Delhi 09.05.2024 (m)"
8. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 09.05.2024, the present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist on the following grounds:
A. That the impugned order dated 09/05/2024 by the Ld. Trial Court are illegal, improper and perverse and are liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court because the aforesaid impugned order dated 09/05/2024 has been ordered by the Ld. Trial Court in a mechanical manner without perusing the record of the judicial file properly as the Section 216 Cr.PC confers jurisdiction on all Courts, including the designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and Sub- Sections (2) to (5) prescribe the procedure which has to be followed after that addition or alteration. Needless to say, the Courts can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 Cr.PC, only when there exists some material before the Court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified. In other words, alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the Court. (Harihar Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266) and in the present matter sufficient material on record to add on the charges against the accused.
B. That the impugned order dated 09/05/2024 by the Ld. Trial Court are illegal, improper and perverse and are liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court because the aforesaid impugned order dated CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 6 of 13 09/05/2024 has been order by the Ld. Trial Court in a mechanical manner without perusing the record of the judicial file properly as the apex court in the case of T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala observed that filing the second FIR regarding the same incident violates Articles 20 (2) and 21 of the Constitution of India 1949 ("the Constitution") and section 300 of Cr. P.C which prohibits double jeopardy.
C. That the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 by the ld. Trial Court are illegal, improper and perverse and are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court because the aforesaid impugned order dated 09/05/2024 has been ordered by the Ld. Trial Court in a mechanical manner without perusing the record of the judicial file properly as the apex court reiterated in Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019(5) SCC
384) the courts at the place where wife reside after leaving the matrimonial home will have jurisdiction to entertain her complaint.
D. That the impugned order dated 00/05/2024 by the Ld. Trial Court are illegal, improper and perverse and are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court because the aforesaid impugned order dated 09/05/2024 has been order by the Ld. Trial Court in a mechanical manner without perusing the record of the judicial file properly.
E. That the impugned order dated 09/05/2024 by the Ld. Trial Court are illegal, improper and perverse and are liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court because the aforesaid Ld. Trial Court in a mechanical manner without perusing impugned order dated 09/05/2024 has been ordered by the ld. Trial Court in a mechanical manner without pursuing the record of the judicial file properly as all the documents pertaining to the property belongs to the husband of the complainant and the same is fraudulently transferred by the in-laws are investigated during the time of investigation but the same is not filed by the I.O. and after filing the applications it comes of record and the complaint of the complainant also mentioned the above facts in her complaint dated 21/04/2014.
F. Because, the impugned order dated 09/05/2024 by the Ld. Trial Court are illegal, improper and perverse and are liable to be revised and set-aside CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 7 of 13 because while passing the impugned order dated 09/05/2024, the Ld. Trial Court has not judged the entire material on record of the aforesaid case properly and judiciously.
G. That the impugned order dated 21/12/2017, the Ld. Trial Court has not carefully gone through entire material on record of the judicial file and the documents filed by the respondent No.2 to 8 in which the respondents shows the property mentioned in the name of deceased husband of the complainant and the whole istridhan is in the custody of the respondent no. 2 to 8 and on the basis of the false and fabricated documents transferred the same on their name even after the death of the complainant's husband. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.05.2024 is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
H. That u/s. 406/420/468/471/408A/34 IPC are made out against the accused on the basis of materials on record, statement of complainant and some documents which filed and some documents which are not filed by the IO/SI/SHO P.S. Hauz Qazi, Delhi. I. That the material on record clearly reveals that the respondent no. 2 to 8 not agreed to return the property of the late Naveen Kumar of the complainant and other documents and articles which are in the possession of the in-laws and misappropriated by the in-laws.
J. That the builders also sent a notice to the respondents No.2 to 8 for doing fraud to the builder by doing false signature of deceased husband after death of the deceased husband of the complainant, and the same fact was known to the I.O. Sh. Raj Kumar (SI), OP Himmat Garh PS. Hauz Quazi, Delhi as informed by the NIRALA ASPIRE Greater Noida West as letter given on 1/4/2016. The same has been informed to Yogesh Kumar through our letter dated 09.06.2015 of forgery. The copy of letter is attached herewith as Annexure-1.
K. That there is material on record clearly shows that the respondent No.2 to 8 have committed the offence punishable u/s. 406/420/468/471/498A/34 IPC as alleged.
CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 8 of 13SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF REVISIONIST
9. It is contended by ld. Counsel for revisionist that there are clear allegations for the offences u/s. 406/498A IPC against the accused persons. It is further argued that the husband of the revisionist committed suicide on 27.12.2013. It is further argued that the revisionist has traced out accounts of her deceased husband in various banks which were concealed by accused persons and they have siphoned off the money from the said accounts. It is further argued that the accused persons have forged signatures of the deceased husband of the revisionist on the property documents for which a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for directions to the concerned SHO for further investigation as new facts have been discovered in the abovenoted FIR but the same was withdrawn on the assurance given by the IO/SHO that supplementary charge-sheet shall be filed. It is further argued that the accused persons have fraudulently got transferred the flats by forging the signature of her deceased husband. It is further argued that the accused persons have also misappropriated the stock of the family business and have also misappropriated the entire claim amount from Birla Life Insurance Company. It is further argued that the offences u/s. 420/468/471/34 IPC are made out against the accused persons and therefore, additional charge must be framed against them including the charge of 498A/406/34 IPC. It is CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 9 of 13 therefore prayed that the impugned order my kindly be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE/R-1
10. To the contrary, Ld. Addl. PP for State submitted that the impugned orders passed by the ld. MM are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is further argued that no interference is warranted in the impugned orders as there is no illegality or irregularity in the said orders.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF R-2 TO R-8
11. Ld. Counsel for R-2 to R-8 argued that R-2, 6, 7 and 8 were already discharged from the present case vide order dated 21.12.2016 but they have been arrayed as party in the present revision petition without any reason. It is further argued that the said order dated 21.12.2016 was challenged by the revisionist but the revision petition was dismissed. It is further alleged that there are no grounds for allowing the application u/s. 216 Cr. P.C. as there are no allegations in the FIR and there is nothing in the charge-sheet. It is further argued that the order discharging the accused persons u/s. 498A/406 IPC has attained finality after dismissal of the revision petition. It is prayed that the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. This Court has heard the contentions from both the sides and has perused the judicial record.
CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 10 of 13ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. Vide order dated 21.12.2016, the ld. Trial Court discharged all the accused persons u/s. 406/498A/34 IPC by passing detailed order and the same was challenged by the revisionist by a revision petition which was dismissed by the ld. Sessions Court. The order of discharge u/s. 406/498A/34 IPC of the accused persons had thus, attained finality. By filing an application u/s. 216 Cr. P.C., for additional charge, the revisionist is thus debarred from pressing the additional charges u/s. 406/498A/34 IPC. The R-2, 6, 7 and 8 who have been discharged could not have been arraigned as accused persons on the application u/s. 216 Cr. P.C. seeking framing of additional charge. Thus, this Court finds this present revision petition as bad for wrongly arraigning R-2, 6, 7 and 8 as parties to the present revision petition. This Court also does not find any merit in the present revision petition as far as the charges u/s. 406/498A/34 IPC as alleged by the revisionist are concerned as the accused persons were discharged fro the said offences by the ld. Trial Court and the same has been affirmed by the ld. Sessions Court.
14. Coming to the offences u/s. 420/468/471/34 IPC, it is to be observed that there were no allegations in the FIR with respect to the aforesaid sections. It is only when the complainant allegedly came to know about some documents, she filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for seeking further investigation but the same was withdrawn CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 11 of 13 in view of the submissions by the State that investigation in the subsequent complaint is being done and if required, supplementary charge-sheet will be filed. Till date, no supplementary charge-sheet has been filed. The revisionist filed an application before the ld. Trial Court which was deferred by the ld. Trial Court vide order dated 07.10.2020 but the revisionist did not press for the said application and the same is still lying undecided. The complainant has approached the ld. Trial Court seeking framing of additional charges u/s. 420/468/471/34 IPC but it is interesting to note that there is no investigation and no supplementary charge- sheet on the allegations of the revisionist. Thus, in the absence of any material on record, the ld. Trial Court could not have framed the charges as the State has not filed any supplementary charge-sheet after investigation on the subsequent allegations of the revisionist. The ld. Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application u/s. 216 Cr. P.C. and observed that the offences which the revisionist are alleging were not part of the original complaint and she may pursue her remedies separately.
CONCLUSION
15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court. No interference is warranted.
16. Resultantly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
CR No. 316/2024 Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 12 of 1317. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court alongwith the TCR for information and necessary action.
18. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 04th March, 2025 (SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI) ASJ-04/CENTRAL/DELHI 04.03.2025(VR) Digitally signed SUSHIL by SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI ANUJ Date:
TYAGI 2025.03.04
04:31:13 +0530
CR No. 316/2024
Pushpanjali Vs. State and Ors. Page No. 13 of 13