Delhi District Court
Harmeet Kaur vs The State on 15 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHAHDARA DISTT., KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Revision No. : 96/2013
Unique I.D. No. 02402R028982013
In the matter of :-
HARMEET KAUR
W/o Sh. Davinder Preet Hora,
R/o C-6/240, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. ..............Revisionist
VERSUS
1. THE STATE
NCT of Delhi.
2. DAVINDER PREET HORA
S/o Sh. Daljeet Singh Hora.
3. DALJEET SINGH HORA
S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh.
4. BHUPINDER KAUR
W/o Sh. Daljeet Singh Hora.
Respondents No. 1 to 4 are
R/o H. No. 4/59, W.E.A. Padam Singh Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
5. JAGJEET KAUR
W/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh.
R/o H.No. 15A/39, Block No. 15-A
West Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. ........... Respondents
Date of Institution : 09/09/2013
Date of reserving order : 07/03/2014
Date of pronouncement : 15/03/2014
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of the Criminal Revision Petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C, preferred by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 25/07/2013 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara Crl. Rev. No. 96/13 1 of 4 Pages District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 420/08, U/s 498- A/406/34 IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , PS Welcome, wherein, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had discharged accused persons/respondents for offence U/s 406/34 IPC.
2. Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
3. On behalf of the revisionist, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that the impugned order is neither sustainable in law nor on facts; that the Ld. Trial Court has committed a glaring irregularity/illegality in passing the impugned order by ignoring the provisions of section 405 IPC; that the Ld. Trial Court while discharging the accused persons of the offence U/s 406 IPC solely relied on the order passed by Sh. B.S. Chumbak, Ld. ASJ while granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons by mis-interpreting the said order in his own way, resulting in discharge of accused persons; that according to Ld. Counsel for the revisionist, there is list of goods, articles and jewellery along with the relevant items with approximate value thereof, which remain in the custody of the accused persons and have been misappropriated and the said list can be considered and compared. Since the said articles, goods and jewellery entrusted to the accused persons, have not been returned, rather they have refused to return the same and misappropriated them, the charge for offence U/s 406 IPC ought to have been framed and therefore, the revision be allowed and impugned order discharging the accused persons U/s 406 IPC be set-aside.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 5, however, submitted that there is no illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the impugned order. It was submitted that complainant has received all the 'istridhan' articles vide seizure memo, in FIR No. 420/2008, PS Bhajanpura, duly signed by the complainant, her father and other witnesses. Moreover, a sum Crl. Rev. No. 96/13 2 of 4 Pages of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of remaining 'istridhan' and jewellery articles has been paid to the complainant as per orders of Ld. ASJ dated 25.04.2009. The alleged list of remaining articles filed by the complainant is false and do not form part of the 'istridhan' articles of the complainant as such customary gifts are given at the time of the marriage by the girl's side to the boy or relatives of the boy without demand and therefore, provisions of Section 406 IPC are not attracted. It was submitted that the accused persons were rightly discharged by Ld. Trial Court and therefore, revision be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied on authorities reported as "Harmel Singh & Anr. vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh & Anr." {2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 789} and "State of NCT of Delhi vs. Rakesh & Ors." {2012 [2] JCC 1334}.
5. I have heard the submissions from both sides and gone through the record.
6. As per the record, there is a list of 'istridhan' dated 13.08.2008 consisting of three pages (on page 123 to 127). However, neither any document such as bill or receipt is enclosed nor the total value of the articles including jewellery has been mentioned. There is another list of articles dated 11.09.2008 (on page 129 to 131) on the top of first page 'admit list' has been mentioned and subsequently, the complainant has mentioned the passport and Election ID Card on 15.09.2008 at page No. 137. A list of 'istridhan' articles which was seized and handed over to the complainant consists of 51 articles on page No. 59 to 63, which was prepared in the presence of four witnesses namely Pritam Singh, Jagpreet, Shyam Bhuddhi Raja and Daljeet Singh, and the articles have been received by the complainant. However, the complainant had mentioned a list of balance items on page No. 65 to 69. Vide order dated 25.04.2009, Ld. ASJ after hearing the arguments on bail Crl. Rev. No. 96/13 3 of 4 Pages application, directed the accused persons to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on depositing the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of the 'istridhan' and jewellery articles without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. The said order cannot be deemed to have been passed finally adjudicating on the rights of the parties and cannot be interpreted by assuming that value of the remaining 'istridhan' articles was of value of Rs. 2,50,000/- only. The order is clear that the said order has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, which shall be adjudicated only after trial of the case. Since the complainant has filed a list of balance 'istridhan' / dowry articles, and in lieu thereof, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons, Ld. ASJ had directed them to pay Rs. 2,50,000/-, which has been paid to the complainant. However, parties have to prove whether these articles were part of istridhan or customary gift articles and if the same were part of istridhan whether the value thereof was Rs. 2,50,000/-or more. The parties will have to lead evidence to prove their rival contentions and therefore, the discharge of the accused persons for offence U/s 406 IPC, at this stage, is not justified.
7. In my considered view, impugned order is liable to be set-aside and is accordingly, set-aside. The revision petition is allowed. Ld. Trial Court is directed to frame additional charge for offence u/s 406/34 IPC and to proceed with trial as per law.
8. Copy of order alongwith trial court record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (T.S. KASHYAP)
today i.e on 15th March, 2014 ASJ-01/ Special Judge (NDPS)
Shahdara District, Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. 96/13 4 of 4 Pages