Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Smt. Prachi Jain vs The State Page 1/ on 26 August, 2022

         IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA,
               ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
          WEST DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI

                                        CNR NO.: DLWT01- 005475-2022
                                         Criminal Revision No. 150/2022

1. Smt. Prachi Jain,
D/o Sh. Rakesh Jain

2. Smt. Sadhna Jain,
W/o Sh. Rakesh Jain,

3. Sh.Mukul Jain,
S/o Sh. Rakesh Jain,

4. Ms. Mansi Jain,
D/o Sh. Rakesh Jain,

5. Sh.Rakesh Jain,
S/o Sh. Amolak Chand Jain,

All 1-5 R/o H. No. F-24/188,
Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110085

6.Sh. Mahender Jain,
S/o late Sh.Kundan Lal Jain,
R/o C-13/159, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.

7. Sh.Pawan Jain,
S/o Sh. Kishan Jain,
R/o H.No. 81, Pocket-H-32,
Sector-32, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085                              .... Revisionists/Petitioners.

                                   V.

The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)                 ..... Respondent


Criminal Revision No. 150/22
Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State                            Page 1/10
          Date of Institution     :              08.06.2022
         Date of reserving order :              20.08.2022
         Date of pronouncement :                26.08.2022

ORDER :

1. The present revision petition has been preferred under section 397 Cr.P.C by the revisionists against order on charge dated 06.04.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM -08, West District (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court) in FIR No. 477/2018, PS Paschim Vihar, titled as State v. Prachi Jain & Ors., whereby all the petitioners/revisionists were charged for the offences punishable under sections 448/427/34 IPC.

2. It is the case of the revisionists/petitioners as per the revision petition that they are the accused before the Ld. Trial Court in FIR No. 477/2018, PS Paschim Vihar. The said FIR was registered vide order of Ld. MM dated 06.11.2018 on the application of complainant Smt. Usha Jain u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It was complained by complainant Smt. Usha Jain that she is the exclusive owner of property bearing no. A-62, upper ground floor, Paschim Vihar, Meera Bagh, Delhi and resides in that property since 2014. Due to the regular illness of her husband, she had shifted to the house of her elder son namely Rahul Jain. On 29.08.2017, she received a call from her neighbours that one sardarji along with two ladies had entered in her house after detaching the main wooden door and had trespassed into her house in connivance and collusion with others.

3. The present revision has been preferred by the revisionists/petitioners against the impugned order on the grounds that Criminal Revision No. 150/22 Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State Page 2/10 the Ld. Trial Court had passed the order on charge on the basis of presumptions and surmises and against the facts and provisions of law and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, the Ld. Trial Court had failed to take into consideration that petitioner Prachi Jain is the wife of younger son of complainant namely Namit Jain. It is further averred that marriage took place between Namit Jain and Prachi Jain on 26.04.2016 and one child was born out of the wedlock on 03.03.2017. After marriage, Prachi Jain had started residing at A-62, Upper Ground Floor, Paschim Vihar, Meera Bagh, Delhi along with her husband Namit Jain and her in-laws including complainant Usha Jain. The said house is the shared household/matrimonial house of petitioner Prachi Jain, wherein she had resided after marriage with her in-laws. The petitioner Prachi Jain had left her matrimonial home on 02.04.2017 in order to go to her paternal home after birth of the child as per custom. On 20.08.2017, when she returned to her matrimonial home, she was not allowed entry and was asked to come after a week. Local police was informed to that effect. On 25.08.2017, when petitioner again came to her matrimonial house, she found that the house was locked and therefore, she being the legal resident of the said property got opened the lock of the front door with the help of a key maker. Therefore, no offence is committed by her as she has right to live in the shared household being wife of Namit Jain, who is the younger son of the complainant Usha Jain.

4. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists/petitioners that Ld. MM had also not taken into account statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant Usha Jain as per which she had stated that after getting possession of the house, she had checked the entire household articles Criminal Revision No. 150/22 Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State Page 3/10 and nothing was found missing and petitioner Prachi Jain was living in the same room where she was residing before 25.08.2017.

5. It is further averred by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that as per statements of eye witnesses namely Tanu Vora and Neeraj Vora, they had witnessed petitioner Prachi Jain entering in the house along with her mother and brother with the help of a key maker and therefore, there are no grounds to charge the other petitioners. They are implicated only because they are related to petitioner Prachi Jain.

6. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 be set aside, the revisionists/petitioners be discharged from the case and the revision petition be allowed. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments has relied upon the case laws reported as Kavita Dass Vs. NCT of Delhi and Another, decided on 17.04.2012 and S. Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others, decided on 15.12.2020.

7. Trial Court record (TCR) was summoned and perused.

8. I have heard the arguments as advanced by Ld. counsel for the revisionists and Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also perused the impugned order, the TCR and the entire material available on record.

9. Under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court situated within his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court.

10. The Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.04.2022 had charged all the revisionists/petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 427 IPC both read with section 34 IPC. The impugned order is a detailed order on charge and is passed by the Ld. Trial Court after perusal of charge sheet, statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C., documents and photographs placed on record. It had also taken into consideration the case law titled Kanwar Sood Vs. Nawal Kishore and Another 1983, Cr. L.J. 173 relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and held that the facts in the present case are different from the said case law.

11. It was observed by the Ld. Trial Court that petitioner Prachi Jain along with other petitioners had brought a key maker/lock expert to break the locks and forcibly entered the property which was left by the petitioner Prachi Jain due to marital discord approximately four months prior. The petitioner Prachi Jain had not allowed the complainant to enter the property and accordingly had forcibly dispossessed her, therefore, she had the intention to intimidate, insult and annoy the complainant who was the rightful owner of the property. Petitioner no.1 Prachi Jain had vacated the property only on 20.08.2018 after order was passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to vacate the same within two months. It was further observed that in view of the statement of witness Neeraj Vora and in view of the statement of the complainant and her supplementary statement, categoric allegations are there against all the petitioners.

12. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases reported as Kanti Bhadra Shah vs State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl. L. J 746 and Omwati vs State through Delhi Administration, 2001 (2) Criminal Revision No. 150/22 Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State Page 5/10 crimes 59 that at the stage of framing of charge the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged as it would amount to pre-mature appreciation of evidence.

13. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as B.C.Upreti & anr v. State and anr on 16.07.2015 that it is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charges, no roving enquiry is to be made nor the pros and cons of the materials could be weighed in detail as it would tantamount to a mini trial and such is not in the scheme of the code. The reason for this is that the prosecution ought to be allowed to bring its evidence at the trial and the case ought not to be shut out at the threshold when there is reasonable material for holding trial.

14. Perusal of the TCR reveals that FIR was registered on 06.11.2018, pursuant to order of ld. MM u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register the same, on the basis of complaint dated 06.09.2017 of the complainant.

15. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner had relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C.No. 4282/2011 and Crl. M.A.No.19670/2011, titled as Kavita Dass v. NCT of Delhi dated 17.04.2022 to substantiate his submission that as petitioner Prachi Jain was the wife of the younger son of the complainant and had resided with her husband in the property in question, therefore, the said property was her matrimonial home and shared household and thus, entering her own property with the help of key maker does not amount to criminal trespass. Perusal of the said Judgment reveals that the facts of that matter are different from the present case. In that case, the Criminal Revision No. 150/22 Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State Page 6/10 petitioner had entered in the rented house of her husband with the help of Protection officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the Protection officer had handed over the keys of the front door, bed room door and balcony door to the petitioner from the respondent/husband. However, in the present case, the petitioners had forcibly entered the property by getting the locks of the doors opened with the help of a key maker. There was no order from any Court or authority in favour of the petitioners to enter into the property. The property was, as per the case of the prosecution, in possession of the complainant and locks of the complainant were there on the door of that property. Without order of any competent Court of law or authority, the petitioners, as per the case of the prosecution, had broken the locks and had forcibly trespassed into the property in question.

16. Ld. counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.Vanitha v. Dy. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & others, decided on 15.12.2020, wherein it was held that recourse to summary procedure contemplated by the Senior Citizen Act, 2007 was not available for the purpose of facilitating strategies that are designed to defeat the claim of the appellant in respect of a shared household. The facts of the present case are different from that case as well as herein the premises were locked and the petitioners forcibly entered the same without order from any authority or competent Court of Law, thereby taking law in their hands.

17. Perusal of the TCR reveals that initial complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the complainant was against petitioner Prachi Jain, Sadhna Jain and the Lock broker. Thereafter, the matter was investigated Criminal Revision No. 150/22 Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State Page 7/10 pursuant to the orders of ld. MM. Statements of witnesses were recorded. PW Neeraj Vora in his statement dated 07.07.2019 stated that on 25.08.2017, petitioners Prachi Jain, Mukul Jain, Sadhna Jain alongwith one key maker/Sardarji came to the house of the complainant and the key maker forcibly opened the front door of the house and thereafter, petitioner Prachi Jain alongwith other petitioners forcefully trespassed in the property. He further stated he alongwith his wife Tanu Vora had asked them not to break the lock of the door, however still they forcibly broke the lock and entered into the property. Another statement of PW Neeraj Vora was recorded on 20.08.2019, wherein he stated that on the day of incident, petitioner Prachi came alongwith her brother and mother and few other people and a key maker and broke the lock of the house. PW Tanu Vora in her statement recorded on 20.08.2019 had stated that petitioner Prachi alongwith her brother broke the lock of the ground floor and entered the house with the help of key maker (sardarji) on 25.08.2017 and they had an argument with her husband.

18. Besides the statements of these public witnesses, there is supplementary statement of complainant Usha Jain dated 20.08.2019, wherein she had stated that when she had reached at her house after receipt of information of trespass in her house from her neighbours, she saw that petitioners Prachi, Sadhna, Rakesh, Mukul, Mansi, Mahender and two other persons had trespassed in her property and misbehaved with her and made her leave the house. There is statement of PW Rahul Jain also to the effect that when he reached at the premises, he found that Prachi, Sadhna, Rakesh, Mukul, Mansi, Mahender, Pawan and 2-3 Criminal Revision No. 150/22 Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State Page 8/10 other persons had acquired the property of his mother and they threatened them so he took his mother from that property.

19. Thus, in the present case, in view of the supplementary statement of complainant, in view of the further statement of PW Neeraj Vora, in view of the statement of PW Rahul Jain, prima-facie presence of petitioner Mansi, Rakesh, Mahender and Pawan at the spot is also shown. Besides them, categoric allegations are there against accused Prachi, Sadhna, Mukul and Ram Kunwar since beginning.

20. Section 448 IPC provides punishment for house trespass which is defined under section 442 IPC. Section 441 IPC states that whoever entered into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property is said to commit criminal trespass.

21. The ld. Trial Court had categorically held that as the petitioners had dispossessed the complainant from the property trespassed and the complainant could gain possession of the property only after the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 20.08.2018, therefore, the petitioners had forcibly dispossessed the complainant after trespassing in her property and thus, section 448 IPC is attracted.

22. Besides that, the front door of the property was forcibly opened after detaching the main wooden door installed at the house. There are photographs to that effect filed by the investigating agency.

23. Thus, Ld. Trial Court had correctly held that prima facie offences punishable under section 448 IPC and 427 IPC both read with section 34 IPC are made out against all the petitioners/revisionists and had charged them for the said offences.

24. In view of the above discussions and findings, it is held that there is no material irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and the order is correct, proper and in accordance with law. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.

25. The TCR be sent back along with the copy of this order to the Ld. Trial Court.

26. The file of this revision case be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in the open
Court on 26.08.2022                    (Neha Paliwal Sharma)
                                    Additional Sessions Judge -05
                                   (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi




Criminal Revision No. 150/22
Prachi Jain & Ors. Vs. The State                          Page 10/10