Delhi District Court
Mrs. Indermeet Kaur vs State on 8 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 118/19
CNR No. DLWT010029082019
Mrs. Indermeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Amandeep Singh
D/o Sh. Pritpal Singh
R/o A10, 2nd Floor, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi110018 ........... Revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. Sh. Amandeep Singh (husband)
S/o Sh. Harpinder Singh Bhatia
R/o D1/C, 77B, Janakpuri,
New Delhi ......... Respondents
Date of filing : 12.04.2019
Date of arguments : 08.05.2019
Date of Order : 08.05.2019
ORDER
1. The complainant / revisionist has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against an order dated 30.01.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by Ms. Sonam Gupta, Ld. MM (Mahila Court02) West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case FIR No. 297/2018 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Hari CR No.118/19 Smt. Indermeet Kaur Vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 6 Nagar, whereby an application filed by the accused for return of admitted articles to the complainant through IO / SHO concerned or to deposit in the Malkhana till disposal of the case, has been allowed.
2. The brief facts, as set out in the present revision petition, are that the revisionist got married to the respondent No.2 on 19.11.2017 and met through the mediator Promila Chopra @ Pumple Aunty for the first time on 15.01.2017. From the very beginning of the marriage, hefty demands were made by the respondent No.2 and his family members. The mother in law of the revisionist and respondent No.2 specially insisted for the marriage ceremony to be performed in Clay one Grand, Mayapuri and the same was somehow arranged by the father of revisionist by taking loans from the relatives. After the marriage, all her articles including stridhan were lying at her matrimonial home. In order to grab the personal savings of the revisionist, the respondent No.2 and other accused persons kept a track on the finances of the revisionist and asked her how much money is there in her account and got opened an account in a bank but the details of same were not disclosed to her by the respondent No. 2 and his family. All her jewellery articles, clothes and other articles were left with mother in law and in the matrimonial home and same was not returned to her.
3. The revisionist is aggrieved by the impugned order on the grounds among others that the impugned order is erroneous on the face CR No.118/19 Smt. Indermeet Kaur Vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 6 of the record and will lead to miscarriage of justice. The Ld. trial Court failed to appreciate that the stridhan and other articles are still lying in the matrimonial home of the revisionist. A complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has also been filed and is pending, wherein the revisionist has prayed for granting residence rights. The respondent No.2 has admitted that the belongings of the revisionist are lying at the matrimonial home. The revisionist is having rights over the matrimonial home of the petitioner i.e. D1/C, 77B, Janakpuri, New Delhi and it is the duty of the respondent No.2 to provide the shelter to the revisionist. The order passed by the Ld. Trial Court for depositing the belongings of the revisionist is illegal. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment in case reported as Roma Rajesh Tiwari Vs. Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari in WP No. 10696/2017 dated 12.10.2017 and Navneet Arora Vs. Surende Kaur & Ors. 2014(145) DRJ 199 [DB]
4. Reply to the revision petition been not been filed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent No.1. However, reply to the revision petition has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2. The revision petition is time barred and filed with the delay and latches. The ld. MM has passed the detailed order after affording opportunities to both the parties and material facts. During counselling before CAW Cell, the respondent No.2 admitted the articles which are lying at the separate flat of respondent No.2 and requested the complainant and the CR No.118/19 Smt. Indermeet Kaur Vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 6 Inquiry Officer at CAW Cell but the revisionist made excuses on one pretext or the other. The other allegations made in the revision petition qua the respondent No.2 have been denied. It has been denied that all the jewellery articles, clothes and other articles of the revisionist were left with her mother in law (deceased) and in the matrimonial home. The revisionist has taken her jewellery and clothes with her and the remaining items are also handed over to the IO as per the admitted list handed over before the CAW Cell. The said articles have been handed over to the IO in compliance of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Ld. MM. Therefore, no ground is made out to file the present revision petition.
5. TCR has been summoned and received. Despite opportunity given, main counsel for the respondent No.2 has not appeared for arguments. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and Ld. Addl. PP for State / respondent No.1 and also the proxy counsel for the respondent No.2 and have perused the materials on record.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued that the respondent No.2 has been represented through Attorney but there is no provision in criminal law to represent through attorney. The respondent No.2 is working in Thailand and at present, he is not in India. The main purpose of the respondent No.2 is to avoid legal liability. In CAW Cell, the entire jewellery articles of the revisionist CR No.118/19 Smt. Indermeet Kaur Vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 6 has not been admitted which is more than Rs. 15 lacs. The IO has not done anything qua the articles lying in the shared house. The same may be kept there. All the jewellery should be handed over to the revisionist by the respondent No.2. The Ld. Addl. PP for the respondent No.1/State argued that the Ld. MM has passed the impugned order to deposit the admitted articles in malkhana after perusing the records.
7. Perusal of the records reveals that on the basis of the complainant of the complainant / revisionist FIR was registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and chargesheet was filed for the said offences. The Ld. MM, while disposing off the application filed by the accused for return of the admitted articles to the complainant, perused the records and directed the applicant / accused to deposit the admitted articles in the malkhana. It is for the revisionist to receive the admitted articles from the IO concerned after following due procedure. It is a matter of evidence before the Ld. Trial Court about the allegation of all the jewellery with the respondent No.2 but the admitted articles as per the respondent No.2 have already been handed over to the IO concerned in compliance of the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 of the Ld. MM. Moreover, the revisionist is at liberty and have every right to get the other jewelleries, if any, belonging to her to recover if permissible as per law. The aforesaid Judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist are distinguishable from the facts and CR No.118/19 Smt. Indermeet Kaur Vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 6 circumstances of the present case in revision petition. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Ld. MM. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order to Ld. Trial Court. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 28.06.2019. File of Revision Petition file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
on this 8th of May, 2019 District & Sessions Judge/(West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No.118/19 Smt. Indermeet Kaur Vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 6