Delhi District Court
State vs Dushyant Kumar & Others on 1 October, 2010
Page 1 of 5 State vs Dushyant Kumar & others FIR No.478/2004 PS :R.K. Puram U/s 498A/406/34 IPC 15092010 ORDER ON POINT OF CHARGE 1. File received from the court of Ms. Priya Mahendra, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) South Delhi, Saket Courts for pronouncement of the judgment/order in the present case, in terms of circular/transfer order no: 27132753/DHC/Gaz3/VI.E.2(a)/2010 Dt.2682010. 2. Vide this order I shall decide the point of charge. 3. The present case is based on the allegations made by the complainant Smt. Geeta Devi in her complaint dated 742004 against her husband and in laws. It is stated by the complainant in the complaint that she was married to the accused Dushyant Kumar in the year April, 2000 at Aligarh ( U.P) 4. It is alleged by the complainant that since the day of marriage the behaviour of the respondents was not good towards her and she was never dropped or
picked from her paternal house and her father or uncle used to pick and drop her to her matrimonial and parental house. It is further alleged by the complainant that her in laws demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ for the purchase of a Tractor and on refusal the behavior of accused persons changed towards her and they started beating her on petty issues. It is stated by the complainant that finally her in laws thrown her out of State Vs. Dushyant Kumar & others (FIR No:478/2004) Page 2 of 5 her matrimonial house on April, 2002 after snatching her all stridhan articles and jewelery which are still lying with the accused persons.
5. I have heard the ld. APP for the state, ld. counsel for accused persons and perused the record carefully including the statement u/s 161 CrPC. Ld. APP for the state argued that there are allegations against all the accused persons. Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that there is nothing against the accused persons and they are liable to be discharged from the offence.
6. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge the court has only to take a prime facie view and not to minutely examine the material. In the recent judgment Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anrs. 2008 (1) JCC 65 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed "It is true that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence".
7. .In the present case, as regard to the offence u/s 406 IPC, the complainant had alleged State Vs. Dushyant Kumar & others (FIR No:478/2004) Page 3 of 5 that her articles are lying with the accused persons. In the entire complaint of the complainant and all the statements u/s 161 CrPC there are no specific allegations for entrustment, demand and refusal qua any of the accused person.
State of Haryana & Anr. II (1993) DMC 605 where it was held that in view of the vagueness of the allegation regarding entrustment of dowry articles and the alleged maltreating, the continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the FIR would amount to any abuse of the process of the Court and it was observed that in that case there was no evidence as to which article was entrusted to which of the accused persons. In Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana I(2000) DMC 697 it was observed that it was not clear from the complaint which was the basis for prosecution as to when the accused persons demanded articles or money or misappropriated the articles given to the bride or the bridegroom at the time of marriage. Again in Rai Singh v. Smt. Gurdev Kaur 1989(1) RCR 647 it was observed that there was no specific allegation that any specific article had been entrusted to the petitioners therein at the time of solemnization of marriage and there was no detail concerning individual acts of cruelty or harassment and as such no offence under Sections 406 or 498A IPC was made out. In Dhan Devi v. Deepak 1989(1) RCR 278 where it was held that the allegation that the articles were entrusted to all the accused were held to be vague and in the present case as well the allegation is regarding all the accused persons. Further in Raj Kumar Khanna v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 95(2002) DLT 147 (DB) it was observed that to attract Section 406 IPC there must be specific allegation of entrustment. Similarly in Sukhbir Jain & Anr. v. State 1993 JCC 91 it was observed:
State Vs. Dushyant Kumar & others (FIR No:478/2004) Page 4 of 5 ''Regarding offence under Section 406 IPC to specific allegation has been made as to which item was entrusted to whom and when she demanded back those articles and from whom and he/she refused. To constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC it is essential that there must be a clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or with dominion or power over it by the complainant and that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the same or converted the same to his own use and that the accused refused to return back these articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. Mere general allegations made in the complaint concerning entrustment of articles of dowry to all the accused at the time of marriage or such like vague allegations would not be sufficient to prima facie make out a cognizable offence under Section 406 IPC."
8. In that case it was held that there were no clear, distinct and specific allegations regarding entrustment to the petitioners, dishonest misappropriation by them or conversion to their own use and refusal by them to return back the articles and the most vital and essential ingredients of the offence under Section 406 IPC were missing and as such no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners under Section 406 IPC.
In the present case as well the only allegation is that the articles are with the accused persons and there are no clear, distinct and specific allegations. Hence all the accused persons are discharged for the offence u/s 406 IPC.
9. . Regarding the offence u/s 498A IPC, both in the complaint and statement u/s 161 CrPC, it is stated that everybody started harassing complainant for dowry and asked to get money from her parents and when she refused, they used to beat her. Complainant in his statement alleged that accused persons demanded dowry of Rs.
50000/ for the purchase of a Tractor and on her refusal their behavior changed
State Vs. Dushyant Kumar & others (FIR No:478/2004)
Page 5 of 5
towards her and they started beating her on petty issues and finally she was thrown out of the matrimonial house in April, 2002. Prima facie there are sufficient material on record to frame charge u/s 498A/34 IPC against all the accused persons.
Hence all the accused persons are required to be charged u/s 498A/34 IPC. There are no allegations for the offence u/s 406 IPC against all the accused persons. Hence all the accused persons are discharged for the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC.
Now to come up for framing of charge against all the accused persons u/s 498A/34 IPC . File be sent back to the court of Ms. Priya Mahendra Ld. MM(South), Saket Court, through Ld. District JudgeIV & Session Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, for framing of charge in the present case accordingly.
Announced in open court on this 1st day
of October, 2010. (Veena Rani)
CCJCumACJCumARC/New Delhi
State Vs. Dushyant Kumar & others (FIR No:478/2004)