Delhi District Court
1/5 State vs . Sukhraj on 11 March, 2013
1/5 State Vs. Sukhraj
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL: MM
(MAHILA COURTS): ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Sukhraj
FIR No. 445/01
PS - S.P. Badli
11.03.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
None for the accused persons.
1.Vide this order, I would take my decision for framing of charge.
2. I have carefully heard arguments on behalf of the parties and also perused the record.
3. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in the present case charge cannot be framed against the accused persons and the allegations made against them are general in nature. No specific allegation has been made against the accused persons. Therefore, prima facie there is no evidence against the accused persons warranting section 498A & 406 IPC.
4. It is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to marshal the evidence and record a finding that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be Contd.......
2/5 State Vs. Sukhraj
framed.
5. For better appreciation of facts Section 498A IPC is reproduced as under:-
"Section 498A IPC provides as under;
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or heath (whether mental or physical) of the woman: or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any un-lawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet her such demand. "
6. The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through constant interference or intimidation. If such fermentation is done with a view to coerce any person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to "harassment" as contemplated by S.498A. Word 'Coercion' means persuading or compelling Contd.......
3/5 State Vs. Sukhraj a person to do something by using force or threats. Thus to constitute offence following ingredients/tests are essential:
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation.
(ii) Such act should be with a view to pursuade or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful demands for any property or valuable security.
7. In the present case it has been alleged by the complainant against the accused persons that after marriage complainant resided at Rajpura Punjab and since the beginning all the accused persons were not happy with the dowry articles and forced the complainant to bring cash of Rs.80,000/- or to provide a pakka house in Delhi. Her parents could not satisfy their illegal demands failing which all the accused persons gave beatings to the complainant on minor matters. Therefore, the complainant has alleged that she returned to her parental house with her father and later on, accused Anil ( husband ) started instigating Ram Sakal (Nandoi) and Usha (Nanad) aganist the complainant and they gave severe beatings to the complainant and his mother and father and threatened if their demand is not met then they will not allow the complainant at her matrimonial house. I have perused the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses. These all are general allegations against all the accused persons.
The complainant has not specified particular time or occasion of demand of dowry of Rs.80,000/- or demand of pakka house. It is generally Contd.......
4/5 State Vs. Sukhraj alleged that since the beginning accused were not happy with the dowry articles and pressurized the complainant to bring Rs.80,000/- or to provide a pakka house. Complainant has not specified any day or occasion of this demand of dowry. The period of demand of dowry is very vague. Further, in the CAW proceedings she has made the statement that she came back to her parental house after six days of marriage and she herself did not return to her matrimonial house as she wanted her husband to purchase separate house for her. Nowadays, it is a practice that when the relations between the husband and wife turn sore then complainant tries to rope in all the relatives of the husband because of dispute between them. In the instant case complainant has not even specified any date or incident of beating. She has not specified manner of beating or role of accused persons in the beating. She has generally alleged that when the demand of dowry could not be met accused persons gave beatings to the complainant. She did not specify that which accused person given beating to her. On the basis of abovesaid application the applicability of Section 498 A is not attracted. All the allegations are general and vague. Hence, all the accused persons are discharged u/s 498A.
8. However, as far as Charge U/s 406 IPC is concerned, Section 405 IPC is reproduced as under:-
Section 405 Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffer any other person so Contd.......
5/5 State Vs. Sukhraj to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
9. As far as offence under section 406IPC is concerned it has not been specifically alleged by the complainant that on which date or occasion articles were entrusted to the accused persons. She has not specified which accused was entrusted with & which article was entrusted. Further, she has not specified any date or occasion or demand of return of entrusted articles.
She has not filed any list of dowry articles duly witnessed by the persons who had attended the marriage at the time of marriage. No list prepared at the time of marriage has been filed. Hence, no case is made out u/s 406 A IPC against any of the accused persons. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that accused Sunil being husband is in the capacity of obvious implied entrustment of dowry articles & demand of return of articles was made at CAW cell, even then matter was settled for Rs.15,000/- for dowry articles. Hence, no case of criminal breach of trust is made out against Husband as on demand of articles, he gave Rs.15,000/- towards dowry articles which was accepted by complainant. Therefore, in this way also no case is made out against any of the accused persons u/s 406 IPC. Hence, all the accused persons are discharged u/s 406 IPC. File be consigned to Record Room.
10. However, bail bonds and surety bonds of all the accused persons stand extended for next six months from today.
(RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) MM/ROHINI/DELHI.
11.03.2013 Contd.......