Delhi District Court
State vs Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order On Charge) ... on 8 April, 2011
FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011
FIR No.: 173/2010
PS: Crime & Railways
08.04.2011
ORDER ON CHARGE:
The arguments on charge in the matter were heard in detail on several dates. On 05.04.2011, arguments on behalf of prosecution as well as accused persons were concluded and the matter was kept for order on charge for today. For the present, there are only four accused persons namely Pawan Kumar (A1), Smt.Ranjeeta (A2), Smt.Shobha Gupta (A3) and Dr.Atul Thapar (A4) (hereinafter referred to as A1, A2, A3 and A4 respectively), whereas other two accused persons namely Dr.Sunita Mehta and Smt.Anupma Lal have so far not been arrested. The accused persons have been in JC since 19.12.2010.
The facts of the case in brief are that the IO of the case namely SI R. Srinivasan had received a secret information in the first week of December' 2010 that A1 was indulging in illegal kidnapping of children and their selling. The said secret information was developed and on 19.12.2010, at about 8.00 AM one secret informer came to the office of IO and disclosed that few days back A1 had sold one baby of 810 days to A2 and on that day he was going to sell 89 months' boy to A2 again. Thereafter, a raiding party State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 1 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 was constituted and at about 9.45 PM, at Shivaji Vihar, near Hanuman Mandir, A1 and A2 were apprehended with a child in the lap of A1. The child was taken into police possession, both the aforesaid accused persons disclosed about purchase and sale of some other children. The case FIR was registered and during the course of investigation, in addition to the aforesaid child, three more children were recovered at the instance of both the aforesaid accused persons. During investigation, it also transpired that A3 was also engaged in similar activities. She alongwith her associate namely Smt.Anupma Lal had sold a female baby of 810 days' age to one Smt.Mamta Aggarwal and had further, in connivance with Dr.Sunita Mehta had got prepared false MCD Birth Registration Certificate in respect of the said baby from Kamlesh Medical Centre, 423, Behra Enclave, Paschim Vihar, as the said medical centre had facility of online registration of births with MCD.
Thereafter, A3 was also arrested in the matter. Later on, A4, being one of the Directors of Kamlesh Medical Centre was also arrested and the relevant registers from the aforesaid medical centre were taken into police possession. IO also took MCD Birth Certificate of the said child from MCD.
The natural parents of the four babies recovered in the matter could not be traced.
The learned APP for the State has very vehemently argued that there is ample material on record to frame charges against all the accused persons for offences punishable U/s 368 IPC r/w Section 120 B and 468 IPC. State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 2 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 Per contra, the learned defence counsels have argued to the contrary. I will take up the arguments accused wise.
Arguments on behalf of A1:
Shri Rambir Singh, learned counsel for accused A1 has submitted that two mobile phones, being mobile No.981114748 and 8010484763 were allegedly recovered from this accused. However, in the call detail records of the aforesaid accused, the mobile numbers and their IMEI numbers are not tallying. It is next contended that the two letters on record, allegedly recovered from this accused do not match with the handwritings of this accused, therefore, he cannot be charged with the offence punishable U/s 468 IPC, as his handwriting samples were not taken. It is next contended that this accused cannot be charged for offence punishable U/s 368 IPC, as there is no material on record to presume that this accused was in conspiracy with other accused persons for kidnapping and concealing the kidnapped children.
Arguments advanced on behalf of accused A2:
Shri Jitender Sethi, learned counsel for accused A2 has very vehemently argued that in order to frame charges U/s 368 IPC against this accused, ingredients of Section 363 IPC, which defines kidnapping have to be satisfied, which entails taking away or enticing of a minor his from lawful guardianship, without consent and in this case there is no evidence that the children were taken out from the lawful guardianship of their State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 3 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 parents/guardians without their consent, as the natural parents of the children could not be found.
It is next contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests on mysterious secret information without there being any basis thereof. It is argued that this accused is running an orphanage in the name of Nav Roshini Chetan Mahilla Samiti, which is registered one and the object whereof is to adopt orphans and unattended children and to take care of their education and maintenance and as such, the children were given in adoption to prospective parents and there is no bar in law to such adoptions.
It is next contended that although the police had placed on record the call detail records of the mobile phones which were being used by this accused to show that she was in constant touch with A1 and A3, but the call detail records in itself is not enough evidence to implicate the accused in the conspiracy to conceal the kidnapped children.
Arguments advanced on behalf of accused A3:
Shri V.P Katiyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused A3, in addition to the arguments of learned counsel for accused A2 has submitted that hue and cry notices were published in respect of four children in this case, by the police itself to show that these children were abandoned and as such, the element of taking away or enticing of the said children with a State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 4 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 view to take them away from their lawful guardianship, without consent of their parents or guardians is not made out. It is further argued that neither Smt.Mamta Aggarwal nor Shri Tarsem Lal Aggarwal have stated a word that this accused induced them to part with a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ in lieu of handing over the custody of a child. It is further argued that said amount was taken towards the legal expenses of adoption.
Arguments advanced on behalf of accused A4:
Shri R.K Wadhwa, learned counsel for accused A4 has very vehemently argued that as per the prosecution case, this accused was no where related with kidnapping or concealing the abducted children. Out of the four children, the allegations against him in the matter are in respect of one child, who was brought in his nursing home by one Smt.Mamta Aggarwal, her father Shri Tarsem Lal Aggarwal, coaccused Smt.Anupma Lal and Dr.Sunita Mehta with a view to get issued an MCD Birth Registration Certificate. It is further argued that Dr.Sunita Mehta is also running her own maternity clinic in the adjoining area by the name of "Yashoda Clinic" and she used to visit Kamlesh Medical Centre for the purpose of delivery of babies. Said Dr.Sunita Mehta managed with the staff of Kamlesh Medical Centre and got fake entries with regard to admission, delivery and discharge of a child and also got fed online information in this regard to MCD from the said Medical Centre, of which this accused is merely one of the Directors. State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 5 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 It is next contended that at the most this accused can be saddled with the charge U/s 465 IPC. It is further argued that there is no evidence to connect this accused with the forgery of documents, as the admission, delivery and discharge papers of the said child have not been found in his handwriting and as such, charge U/s 468 IPC is not made out against him.
The law with regard to framing of charge in these type of cases is fairly settled now.
In case titled as, "State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa & Other", reported as, "JT 1996 (4) SC 615" it was held that:
"If on the basis of material on record a court could come to the conclusion that commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the courts were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame a charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage." In "State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh", reported as, "AIR 1977 SC. 2018: (1977 CRI LJ 1606)" Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 4 as under:
"At the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding the matter under S.227 or S.228 of the code. At that stage the Court is not be see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. But at the initial stage if there is s strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 6 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
In "Umar Abdula Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau", reported as, "JT 1999 (5) SC 394", it was held that:
"It is well settled that at the stage of framing charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. If on the basis of materials on record, the court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence, the court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial."
In the case of "Kallu Mal Gupta vs. State", reported as, "2000 I AD Delhi 107" it was held that:
"While deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case, the court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applied for determining the Guilt or otherwise. This being the initial stage of the trail, the court is not supposed to decide whether the materials collected by the investigating agency provides sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to culminate in his conviction. What is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence."
It is wellsettled law that at the time of framing of charge the FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency cannot be sieved through the cull ender of the finest gauzes to test its veracity. A roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence is not expected or even warranted at the stage of framing charge. Reliance placed on "Sapna Ahuja Vs. State 1999V AD Delhi p 407".
"It is also settled law that if there is strong suspicion at the initial stage which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If there is sufficient ground to show that at the stage of framing of charge reasonable ground for believing that conviction is possible is sufficient". State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 7 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 In case of "Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal", reported as, "2000 I AD (SC) 1", Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"If trial court decides to frame charge there is no legal requirement that the trial court should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why it opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial judge has formed the opinion after considering the report and the documents and after hearing both decides that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. It was held that a magistrate is required to record his reasons for discharging the accused but there is no such requirement is he forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. In such a situation the magistrate is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused."
In paragraph No.12 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing of charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stage, the snail pace progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down." As regards the consistent argument advanced at bar on behalf of A1 to A3 that these accused persons cannot be charged for offence punishable U/s 368 IPC because before showing prima facie commission of offence punishable U/s 368 IPC, the factum of kidnapping by these accused persons, as contemplated U/s 361 IPC has to be established. Kidnapping per se presupposes that a minor was taken or enticed with a view to take him away from his lawful guardianship without the consent of his guardian. In this case, there is no evidence to show that A1 to A3 were instrumental in taking away or enticing the children from the lawful guardianship of their natural parents. It is also clearly apparent on record that these children were State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 8 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 found abandoned or were allegedly sold by their natural parents to unknown intermediaries through which the same came into possession of A1 to A3. It cannot be gain said that abandoned children or children in need of care are nobodies property. There is a recent legislation, i.e Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and rules framed thereunder; the aims and objects of this Act, as are apparent from its Preamble interalia are to consolidate and amend the law relating to children in need of care and protection, and providing for proper care and treatment by catering to their development needs and by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters and to impose on the State a primary responsibility of ensuring that all the needs of children are met and that their basic human rights are fully protected. Some of the important provisions in the Act, which apply on all fours in this matter are as under. Section 2 (d) "Child in need of care and protection" means a child
(i) who is found without home or settled place or abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence;
xxxxx
(v) who does not have parent and no one is willing to take care of or whose parents have abandoned (or surrendered) him or who is missing and run away child and whose parents cannot be found after reasonable inquiry.
xxxxx 2(e) "Children's home"means an institution established by a State Government or by voluntary organisation and certified by that Government State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 9 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 under Section 34;
2 (f) "Committee" means a Child Welfare Committee constituted under section 29;
2 (g) "Competent Authority" means in relation to children in need of care and protection a Committee and in relation to Juveniles in conflict with law a Board;
2(j) "Guardian" in relation to a child, means his natural guardian or any other person having the actual charge or control over the child and recognized by the competent authority as a guardian in course of proceedings before that authority;
2(x) "State Government", in relation to a Union Territory, means the Administrator of that Union Territory appointed by the President under article 239 of the constitution;
Section 31: Powers of Committee: -
(1) The committee shall have the final authority to dispose of cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of the children as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection of human rights.
(2) Where a Committee has been constituted for any area, such Committee shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force but save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, have the power to deal exclusively State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 10 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 with all proceedings under this Act relating to children in need of care and protection.
Section 32: Production before Committee-
(1) Any child in need of care and protection may be produced before the Committee by one of the following persons:
(i) any police officer or special juvenile police unit or a designated police officer;
(ii) any public servant.
(iii)childline, a registered voluntary organisation or by such other voluntary organisation or an agency as may be recognized by the State Government.
(iv) any social worker or a public spirited citizen
(v) by the child himself.
Section 40 Process of rehabilitation and social reintegration - The rehabilitation and social reintegration of a child shall begin during the stay of the child in a children's home or special home and the rehabilitation and social reintegration of children shall be carried out alternatively by (i) adoption, (ii) foster care, (iii) sponsorship, and (iv) sending the child to an aftercare organization.
State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 11 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 Section 41 Adoption -
(1) The primary responsibility for providing care and protection to children shall be that of his family. (2) Adoption shall be resorted to for the rehabilitation of the children who are orphan, abandoned or surrendered through such mechanism as may be prescribed.
(3) In keeping with the provisions of the various guidelines for adoption issued from time to time by the State Government, or the Central Adoption Resource Agency and notified by the Central government, children may be given in adoption by a court after satisfying itself regarding the investigations having been carried out as are required for giving such children in adoption.
(4) The State Government shall recognize one or more of its institutions or voluntary organizations in each district as specialised adoption agencies in such manner as may be prescribed for the placement of orphan, abandoned or surrendered children for adoption in accordance with the guidelines notified under subsection (3).
Provided that the children's home and the institutions run by the State Government or a voluntary organization for children in need of care and protection, who are orphan, abandoned or surrendered, shall ensure that these children are declared free for adoption by the Committee and all such cases shall be referred to the adoption agency in that district for placement of such children in adoption in accordance with the guidelines notified under sub section (3) State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 12 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 (5) No child shall be offered for adoption:
(a) until two members of the Committee declare the child legally free for placement in the case of abandoned children.
(b) till the two months period for reconsideration by the parent is over in the case of surrendered children, and
(c) without his consent in the case of a child who can understand and express his consent.
(2) The court may allow a child to be given in adoption:
(a) to a person irrespective of marital status or;
(b) to parents to adopt a child of same sex irrespective of the number of living biological sons or daughters; or
(c) to childless couples Rules:
32. Rehabilitation & Social Reintegration:
The primary aim of rehabilitation and social reintegration is to help children in restoring their dignity and selfworth and mainstream them through rehabilitation within the family where possible, or otherwise through alternate care programmes and long term institutional care shall be of last resort.
33. Adoption:
(1) The primary aim of adoption is to provide a child who cannot be cared for by his biological parents with a permanent substitute family.
State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 13 of 19
FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 (2) For all matters relating to adoption, the guidelines issued by the Central Adoption Resource Agency and notified by the Central Government under subsection (3) of Section 41 of the Act, shall apply.
(3) In case of orphaned and abandoned children the following procedure shall apply, namely:
(a) Specialized Adoption Agencies shall produce all orphaned and abandoned children who are to be declared legally free for adoption befoer the Committee withing 24 hours of receiving such children, excluding the time taken for journey;
(b) a child becomes eligible for adoption when the Committee has completed its inquiry and declares the child legally free for adoption;
(c) such declaration shall be made in Form XIV;
(d) a child must be produced before the Committee at the time of declaring such child legally free for adoption;
(e) whenever intimation is received by the police about an abandoned infant, the police shall take charge of the infant and arrange to provide immediate medical assistance and care;
(f) subsequently, the child shall be placed in a specialized adoption agency or recognized and certified children's home or in a paediatric unit of a Government hospital followed by production of the child before the Committee within 24 hours;
State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 14 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011
(g) procedure for declaring a child abandoned and certifying him legally free for adoption;
(i) in case of an abandoned child, the recognized agency shall withing 24 hours, report and produce the child before the Committee with the copy of the report filed with the police station in whose jurisdiction the child was found abandoned;
(ii) the Committee will institute a process or inquiry, which shall include a thorough inquiry conducted by the Probation Officer or Child Welfare Officer, as the case may be and who shall give report in Form XIII to the Committee containing the findings within one month;
(iii) there shall be a declaration by the specialized agency, stating that there has been no claimant for the child even after making notification in at least one leading national newspaper and one regional language newspaper for children below two years of age and for children above two years, an additional television or radio announcement and notification to the missing persons squad or bureau shall be made;
(iv) the steps stated in (iii) shall be taken within a period of sixy days from the time when the child is found in case of a child below two years of age and in case of children above two years of age, this period shall be four monhts;
(v) the period of notification shall run concurrently with the inquiry to be conducted and report submitted under clause (ii) of this subrule; State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 15 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011
(vi) the Committee shall declare the child legally free for adoption on completion of the process of inquiry, including declaration or the specialized adoption agency made under clauses (ii) and (iii) of this subrule;
(vii) no child above seven years who can understand and express his opinion shall be declared free for adoption without his consent.
A joint reading of all the aforesaid provisions of the Act and Rules shows that there is mandate of law that the abandoned children or children in need of care and protection, who are found without any home or settled place of residence or without any ostensible means of subsistence or who do not have parents and are found by somebody, are under the guardianship of State and anybody finding them has to produce such children before the Committee within 24 hours of receiving such children, excluding the time taken for journey. There is a procedure which has to be followed by the Committee for giving such children in adoption, as contemplated under Rule 33.
If the provisions of the aforesaid Act are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then it would be apparent that A1 to A3, who had the possession of abandoned children were supposed to produce such children before the Committee and thereafter the Committee would have considered their welfare, because such children were in the lawful guardianship of State. The said children were concealed by A1 to A3 under State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 16 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 a conspiracy and out of the four children, two were given in adoption, without following the procedure established by law and as such, there is prima facie evidence against A1 to A3 for conspiring to sell the children or hand them in adoption, in violation of the provisions of the said Act and Rules.
I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for A1 that IMEI numbers shown in call detail records do not match with the actual IMEI numbers. I have verified it myself; same do tally.
As regards the argument of learned counsel for A2 that the orphanage of A2 by the name of Nav Roshini Chetan Mahilla Samiti is registered one, there is nothing on record to suggest that it was registered with the Committee, as contemplated by Section 34 of the said Act.
There is other overwhelming evidence in terms of Call Detail Records, wherein A1, A2 and A3 were found conversating with each other as also with Dr.Sunita Mehta.
As regards accused A4, although there is no evidence against him that he was in conspiracy with other accused persons for concealing or giving the abandoned children in adoption to third parties, however, there is enough evidence on record against him that in the Kamlesh Medical Centre, of which he is one of the Directors, forged papers of admission, delivery and State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 17 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 discharge of an abandoned child were prepared and information in respect thereof was sent to MCD and on the basis of feeding of such false information, MCD was made to issue Birth Registration Certificate in respect of child, who was shown to have been delivered by Smt.Mamta Aggarwal. However, there is no evidence that it was A4 who had dealings with said Smt.Mamta Aggarwal or her father Shri Tarsem Lal Aggarwal for taking money in lieu of preparation of false documents. As such, A4 is liable to be charged with for offences punishable U/s 465 IPC and 417 IPC.
As regards the case of prosecution against A4 that he cheated Shri Tarsem Lal Aggarwal to part with a sum of Rs.1,80,000/, in lieu of preparation of false documents of admission, delivery and discharge of the child are concerned, ingredients of inducement, as contemplated U/s 415 IPC are missing, as there is virtually no evidence that he was instrumental in coxing Shri Tarsem Lal Gupta to handover the aforesaid money. There is further no evidence whatsoever that he was in touch with either Shri Tarsem Lal Gupta or Smt.Mamta Aggarwal or A3 and Smt.Anupma. Neither Shri Tarsem Lal Gupta nor Smt.Mamta Aggarwal have named A4 in their statements recorded by IO.
From the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it is apparent that Shri Tarsem Lal Gupta had contacted Smt.Anupma; Smt.Anupma alongwith A3 visited Shri Tarsem Lal Gupta on 09.12.2010 and State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 18 of 19 FIR No.173/2010: PS Crime & Railways Date of Order: 08.04.2011 handover the child. On 13.10.2010, A3 and Smt.Anupma contacted Shri Tarsem Lal Gupta and asked him to bring the child to Kamlesh Medical Centre, where Dr.Sunita Mehta was already present. A3 and Smt.Anupma came and handed over the discharge slip of Kamlesh Medical Centre to Shri Tarsem Lal Gupta on 15.12.2010. Thereafter, during investigation, A2 took police to Dr.Sunita Mehta at Yashoda Clinic at Raghubir Nagar, from whom she had got the papers of the child, which were prepared from Kamlesh Medical Centre.
I have refrained from meticulously considering the evidentiary value of the documents collected by the prosecuting agency at this stage, as observations made with regard to documents at this stage can prejudice the case of accused persons.
Separately, let the charge against the accused persons be framed.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Yadav)
on 08.04.2011 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Delhi
State V/s Dr.Sunita Mehta & Ors. (Order on Charge) Page 19 of 19