Delhi District Court
The First Titled As Dr. Asha Sehrawat vs . Ashok Bhadu on 6 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS), OUTER DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. Rev. No.36/11
Dr. Asha Sehrawat
Vs.
Mr. Ashok Bhadu
Date of Institution:21.10.2011
Date on which case was fixed for order :24.02.2012
Date of Judgment:06.03.2012
AND
Crl. Rev. No.45/11
Mr. Rajvinder Singh Malik & Ors.
Vs.
State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Date of Institution:09-09-2011
Date on which case was fixed for order :24-02-2012
Date of Judgment:06-03-2012
JUDGMENT
1. This order shall decide two revision petitions - the first titled as Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Ashok Bhadu Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 1 of 7 bearing No.36/11 and the second titled as Dr. Rajvinder Singh Malik & Ors. Vs. the State of Delhi bearing No.45/11. Revisionist of No.36/11 is the complainant and respondent was discharged by the Court of Ms. Sonali Gupta, Ld. MM, Mahila Court, Rohini Court complex, Delhi vide order dated 06.08.2011 and revisionists of No.45/11 were charged u/s 406/498A/34 of IPC vide the same impugned order.
2. FIR No.482/2004, u/s 406/498A/34 of IPC came into existence on the statement of a lady, namely, Dr. Asha Sehrawat to the effect that she was married with Dr. Rajvinder Singh Malik on 02.01.2003 and dowry articles etc. were given on the demand of husband, parents-in- law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Due to sustained pressure by in-laws, she was compelled to give them all dowry articles. On the second day i.e. on 03.01.2003, when she was at her parental home, Rohtak, her mother- in-law and sister-in-law demanded cash of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. When she opened the trunk containing clothes, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law termed them below their status and standard and asked her to bring dowry in the form of cash. On the demand of father-in-law, Rs.70,000/- and Rs.51,000/- were given on 01.01.2003 and 02.01.2003, Rs.4 lacs to brother-in-law and husband on 30.12.2003, Rs.35,000/- to mother-in-law on different occasions. Her husband tortured her Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 2 of 7 mentally on 16.02.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. because he was unable to consummate marriage due to impotency. In those days, she was employed as medical officer in BJRM hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. She used to commute between Rohtak and Delhi but was compelled to do household work till 12.00 midnight because servants were relieved. On 24.02.2003, her father-in-law compelled her to open a bank account joint with her husband due to which he misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,99,400/-. She was beaten on 30.10.2003 by parents-in-law by dragging by hair. She and her father were summoned at Rohtak on 22.12.2003 for compromise where they were asked to sign papers forcibly. When relations between them became more strained, she demanded back the dowry articles but respondents and revisionist refused.
3. Ld. Counsel for revisionist of No.36/11 argued that there are specific allegations against the respondent and Magistrate has committed grave error by not framing a charge against him u/s 498A of IPC. His request is to set aside that order and charge against respondent be also framed u/s 498A of IPC.
4. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent and for revisionists of No.45/11 argued that it was a dowryless marriage solemnized between the parties on 02.01.2003 in a simple manner. After marriage, the complainant was provided with all sorts of comforts of life Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 3 of 7 but she was not interested to settle the matrimonial home at Rohtak and always preferred Delhi and on this account, she did not allow her husband to consummate marriage due to which relations between them became strained. He further argued that complainant filed a petition for annulment of marriage on 25.07.2005 leveling false allegations of impotency though they had already arrived at a mutual agreement on 22.12.2003. It was voluntarily signed by her and her family members settling everything qua marriage, past, present and future claims etc. During the pendency of annulment petition, the matter was again compromised and parties moved a first motion petition u/s 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act. In that petition, her statement was recorded on 03.06.2006 admitting that there was a mutual agreement between them on 22.12.2003 bearing her signatures at point A and B of agreement Ex.1/G which she had signed voluntarily. It is pertinent to mention that it is mentioned in that agreement that no claim of any of the party was pending qua maintenance, past, present and future, dowry and Istridhan. Ld. Counsel further argued that the complainant again made such statement before the matrimonial Court in second motion petition on 03.07.2006 and taking into account the statement of both parties, the marriage was dissolved. As per the statement made by complainant before the Court, she was to cooperate husband in getting quashed dowry FIR Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 4 of 7 against them u/s 482 of Cr.PC by appearing in the High Court but she did not cooperate and husband's quashment petition was dismissed. Instead of cooperating husband, she made a false statement in the High Court that he had failed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the in-laws of the complainant further argued that complainant is a desperate lady and is hell- bent to trouble his clients and in order to carry out this motive, she moved Hon'ble High Court for modification of order dated 24.01.2008 to the effect that husband had orally agreed to pay Rs.1,35,000/- instead of Rs.35,000/-. Ld. Counsel for in-laws further stated that notice of that modification petition was not issued to them but the amount was corrected as Rs.1,35,000/-. Argument of the counsel for in-laws is based upon the documents of the litigations pending between the parties. These documents are not part of the charge sheet filed by police. Still, this Court is taking those papers into account because these relate to Court proceedings not disputed by wife.
5. Now, let us consider the applicability of Section 406 of IPC. In Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 628, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that to make out Section 406, entrustment of dowry article is necessary. Again in V.R. Dalai & Ors. Vs. Yogender Narain Ji Thakkar & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2793, the Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 5 of 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the allegation of entrustment is missing, Section 406 of IPC is not made out. In Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. Joy Shankar Bhatacharya Ji. AIR 1971 SC 1543, the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that fiduciary relationship is must for entrustment. In the case in hand, it has been alleged in para no.1 of the complaint that due to regular coercions, mental and physical torture by husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband, the complainant was pressurized to give them all her jewellery, gifts, keys of suitcases and trunk just after marriage in February, 2003. So, the complainant did not entrust the dowry articles to the accused. Rather, she was forced to do so. It becomes apparent after going through the complaint that due to the pressure mounted by accused from the day one of marriage, she handed over dowry articles to them. So, there was no fiduciary capacity between complainant and her in-laws. In such strained relations, delivery under pressure cannot be said to be entrustment. So, Section 406 of IPC is not made out at all against any of her in-laws.
6. Allegations against sister-in-law are that on 03.01.2003, she demanded Rs.15,000/- from complainant and also directed her to bring dowry in the form of cash. On 16.02.2003, she slapped complainant on the asking of her husband as he was unable to have sexual intercourse Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 6 of 7 due to impotency. Last allegation against her is that she relieved all servants on 17.02.2003 and complainant was asked to do household work till 12.00 midnight.
7. Allegations against brother-in-law are that in February, 2003, he pressurized complainant to handover him dowry articles. On 03.01.2003, he joined the mother- in-law of the complainant when the complainant opened trunk containing dowry articles. At that time, he taunted that those type of clothes were not as per their status and standard. Last allegation is that on 30.12.2003, he demanded Rs.4 lacs.
8. Brother-in-law is employed at a high post in the State of Haryana. He gets transferred frequently. He hails from Hissar, Haryana which is at a distance of nearly 100 kms. from Rohtak. What was the occasion for brother-in-law and sister-in-law to visit Rohtak every now and then just to harass complainant. Date of demand of Rs.4 lacs by brother-in-law is mentioned as 17.03.2003 in divorce petition whereas it is 30.12.2003 in FIR. Sister and brother-in-law cannot be supposed to be beneficiary of dowry articles. If they are not beneficiary, what motive was prompting them to harass complainant for more dowry. In a case of similar nature titled as Ramesh & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AiR 2005 SC 1989, the Apex Court quashed complaint against sister-in-law.
Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 7 of 7
9. Conclusion of above discussion is that no charge u/s 406 of IPC is made out against any accused. No charge is made out against accused Ashok Bhadu and his wife Mrs. Anita Bhadu. Charge u/s 498A of IPC is made out against Dr. Rajvinder Singh Malik and his parents Mr. Chand Ram Malik and Mrs. Sushila Malik. Both petitions are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be kept in Criminal Revision Petition No.45/2011. Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned Court along with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on 6th day of March, 2012.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL) ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS, DELHI Dr. Asha Sehrawat Vs. Mr. Ashok Bhadu Page 8 of 7