Delhi District Court
Ajit Singh vs State on 23 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE (SFTC), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Criminal revision No. 440632/2016
Ajit Singh .........Petitioner
Vs.
State ..........Respondent
File received on assignment on : 24.12.2016
Arguments heard on : 23.01.2017
Order announced on : 23.01.2017
ORDER:(Oral)
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Ld. MM, Mahila Courts02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner was charged for committing offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC.
2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that the complainantShalini was married to petitioner on 9.2.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and she delivered a female child on 10.11.2011. After marriage, she started living with her husband and inlaws at New Delhi. It is alleged that her parents gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage but her husband and inlaws were not satisfied with it. Immediately after one month of marriage, her inlaws started demanding dowry. She was harassed for money. It is further alleged that the father of the complainant gave Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner and other accused but still they used to threaten the complainant to burn her alive and marry the petitioner somewhere else. On 9.12.2010 a demand Crl. Revision No.440632/16 Page 1 of 4 Ajit Singh v. State of Rs.5 lakhs was made by the petitioner and others from the parents of the complainant and, consequently, Rs.3 lakhs was handed over to inlaws through the complainant. It is further alleged that during pregnancy, complainant developed many complications and there was loss of blood. However, the complainant was beaten up badly. The petitioner tried to push her from the terrace to kill her. She suffered injuries and bled profusely from nose and mouth. Her mother pulled out one of her earrings forcefully. No medical help was provided to her. On these allegations, a case was registered vide FIR No. 308/2012, PS Palam Village u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
3. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against petitioner (husband), Rajwati (motherinlaw) and Nikhil (brotherinlaw) for commission of offences punishable u/ss.498A/406/34 IPC.
4. I have heard Sh. Avneesh Rana, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Satwinder Kaur, Ld. APP for State. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction. According to him, all the allegations levelled by the complainant are against the family members of the petitioner. There is nothing on record which can connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. It is further contended that the complainant had condoned the alleged cruelty, if any, against the petitioner as she did not seek any action against him which is apparent from the last lines of her complaint. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgment - Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996 Legal Eagle (SC) 1112. On the other hand, Ld. APP has contended Crl. Revision No.440632/16 Page 2 of 4 Ajit Singh v. State that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of harassing and torturing the complainant for demand of dowry. According to her, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.
5. The judgment Satish Mehra (supra) relied upon by Ld. Counsel has already been overruled by the judgment rendered by larger Bench of Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Devender Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568. At the stage of framing of charges, there is no requirement to determine the sufficiency (or otherwise) of evidence to record a conviction. It is the settled law that on the basis of the material placed on record by the prosecution if the court finds that prima facie case is made out, the charge (s) is/are to be framed.
6. For arriving at a conclusion whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not, the complaint is to be read as a whole. There are clear allegations of demand of dowry by the petitioner. The complainant has specifically mentioned in her complaint that the petitioner tried to push her from the terrace to kill her. She was also given beatings by the petitioner. It is not specifically mentioned in the complainant that the alleged atrocities committed by the petitioner were condoned by the complainant. It cannot be assumed that such atrocities were condoned only on the basis of the last lines mentioned in the complaint wherein the complainant has alleged that she wanted strict action against her parents inlaw, brotherinlaw (devar) and relatives. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled Crl. Revision No.440632/16 Page 3 of 4 Ajit Singh v. State by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the petitioner before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. Even if trial is proceeded with, the petitioner is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. He would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The criminal revision has no merit. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of the order and revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today i.e on 23.1.2017. Addl. Sessions Judge (SFTC) Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
Crl. Revision No.440632/16 Page 4 of 4