Delhi District Court
Madhu Pamnani vs . Hanish Pamnani And Anr. on 31 May, 2014
Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR NO: 09/14
Madhu Pamnani
D/o Sh.C.L.Ashwani
R/o 6/85-86, Ist Floor
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi. ... Revisionist/Petitioner
Versus
1. Hanish Pamnani
2. Sanju Pamnani
Sons of late Nandrikar Pamnani
Both R/o G-12/5, Ist Floor, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110 017. ... Respondents
Date of institution of revision petition : 04.03.2014
Date on which order reserved : 22.05.2014
Date on which order pronounced : 31.05.2014
ORDER
1. Vide the present revision petition. revisionist/complainant has assailed the order dated 13.12.2013 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) of the ld.trial court vide which respondents were discharged for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for deciding the present CR NO: 09/14 1/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 revision petition are that on 29.04.2009, a complaint was made to the ACP, CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi by the revisionist whereby allegations were made against her in-laws including the present respondents for treating her with cruelty on account of demand of dowry and for mis-appropriation of Istridhan.
3. On the basis of complaint, FIR No. 57/09, PS Nanakpura was registered u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, statement of neighbours i.e.Gurmeet Kaur and Pooja Joshi were recorded apart from statements of Sh.C.L.Ashwani and Smt.Nirmala, parents of revisionist/complainant.
5. After the completion of investigation, husband of revisionist, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brothers-in-law i.e.respondents in the present revision petition were charge sheeted for the offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
6. The ld.trial court after perusing the charge sheet and documents filed alongwith it, came to the conclusion that allegations made against respondents are so vague and general that they are not prima facie sufficient to frame charge against respondents and accordingly, vide the impugned order, had discharged the respondents for the offence u/s 498A/406 CR NO: 09/14 2/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 IPC.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order of discharge, revisionist/complainant has preferred the present revision petition.
8. Notice of the revision petition was issued to respondents who have filed a detailed reply to the revision petition.
9. In the reply filed by respondents, it was submitted that present revision petition is not maintainable as there are no specific allegations in the FIR, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and also in the charge sheet against respondents. It is further submitted that incident dated 05.10.2008 given in the complaint also do not make out a case for framing of charge as there is no allegation that said quarrel had taken place due to demand of dowry. It was further submitted that respondents were staying separately since 2003 from the revisionist and her husband and even the IO while charge sheeting the respondents have specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that no evidence has come on record during investigation justifying their arrest. Accordingly, it was prayed that revision petition be dismissed.
10.I have heard ld.counsel for revisionist and ld.counsel for respondents. I have also summoned the trial court record and CR NO: 09/14 3/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 have carefully perused the material available on record.
11.It was contended by counsel for revisionist that allegations in entirety have to be seen and if the entire complaint is read in its entirety then there are allegations against respondents of treating the revisionist with cruelty. Therefore, the ld,trial court committed grave illegality by discharging the respondents for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: --(1) Shakuntala Devi (Smt) Vs. Suneet Kumar & Ors., 1996(3) C.C.Cases 301 (HC); (2) Sudhir Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs. State, 1994 JCC 437; (3) Anil Vs. The State/Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2007 (4) JCC 2943; and (4) Amit Kochar and anr. Vs. State of Delhi, 2007 (1) JCC 709.
12.On the other hand, it was submitted by the counsel for respondents that there are no specific allegations made against respondents to show that they have treated the revisionist with cruelty on account of dowry demands. It was submitted that in para 10 of the complaint, it has not been specifically stated as to which brother in law of revisionist took all her belongings when she returned from her honeymoon. Further, in para 7 of the complaint, the only allegation against brother in law is of abusing sister and family members of revisionist and that too on the issue of hiding revisionist's husband shoes at the time of CR NO: 09/14 4/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 marriage and not on account of any dowry demand.
13.In para 22 of the complaint, allegations are against the husband and in-laws of revisionist that a fight took place on account of beating up of son of revisionist by her husband on account that he had filled the toilet flush with water and there are no allegations that fight was on account of dowry demands from revisionist. It was further submitted that although allegations are there that in-laws of revisionist had beaten up mother and sister of revisionist on 05.10.2008, respondents have no concern with the fight which took place with revisionist as they are staying separately from revisionist since 2003 and had no role to play in the said fight. Even in the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C., there are no allegations that respondents used to treat the revisionist with cruelty on account of dowry demands. Accordingly, it was prayed that revision petition be dismissed.
14.In order to appreciate the rival contentions of parties, I would like to first state the law with regard to discharge of accused in criminal trial which can be succinctly summarised as follows by referring to following judgments of Supreme Court:-
(i) Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI Criminal Appeal of 2010 (Arising out of SLP NO. 6374/10 date of Judgment 20.09.2010)
(ii) Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar samal (1979)3 SCC4 CR NO: 09/14 5/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14
(iii)Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra(2002) 2 SCC 135
(a) The court while considering the question of framing the charge under the Criminal procedure Code has undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(b) Where the materials placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(c) The court can not act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there can not be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if court was conducting a trial.
(d) The Court is required to be evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
(e) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial CR NO: 09/14 6/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused.
15.In addition to law cited hereinabove, there cannot be any dispute with regard to law cited by counsel for revisionist with regard to framing of charge. Now, let us see whether in the present case, prima facie material was there before the ld.trial court to have framed charge against respondents or not u/s 498A/406 IPC.
16.The allegations against respondents are contained in para 7, 10,21 and 22 of the complaint dated 29.04.2009.
17.During the course of arguments, it was admitted by counsel for revisionist that respondents were staying separately from the revisionist since 2003. The allegation in para 7 of the complaint are against the mother- in-law and brother- in- law of revisionist whereby it is alleged that they have abused sister and family members of revisionist on the reception of her marriage on the issue of hiding of her husband's shoes. Although this allegation is not specifically directed against any of the respondent and even otherwise, the said allegation has not been made against brother- in- law for treating the revisionist with cruelty on account of dowry demands. As per the allegations of revisionist, some hot words were exchanged between the brother in law and sister of revisionist on account of some prank played by CR NO: 09/14 7/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 revisionist's family by hiding shoes of her husband. It is very normal for the bride's family to play such kind of pranks in marriages and this allegation nowhere prima facie discloses that the act of mother- in- law and brother in law would tantamount to treating revisionist with cruelty on account of dowry demands.
18.In para 10, it is alleged that mother-in -law and brother- in- law had taken all the belongings of revisionist when she returned from her honeymoon. This allegation against brother -in- law is general in nature and is not specific. Both respondents happen to be brothers-in-law of revisionist and in para 10 of the complaint, it is not clear as to which of the respondent retained all the belongings of revisionist. Therefore, on the basis of such general and vague allegations, no charge for criminal breach of trust u/s 406 IPC can be framed.
19.In para 21, it is alleged that in September, 2006, revisionist was beaten up mercilessly by all her in-laws and she was left half dead at her parents house. No medical documents have been filed alongwith charge sheet in support of her allegations and since it is admitted case of revisionist that respondents were staying separately from her since 2003, therefore, there is no prima facie material to show that respondents also took part in beating up of revisionist. Even otherwise, allegations of said CR NO: 09/14 8/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 beating being done on account of dowry demands are missing from para 21 of the complaint.
20.Further, allegation as per para 22 of the complaint are of 05.10.2008 when husband of revisionist had beaten up their son on account that he had filled the toilet flush with water. Thereafter, when revisionist had called her parents, her husband alongwith his parents, had physically assaulted parents of revisionist and had abused them. Therefore, allegations with regard to fight which took place on 05.10.2008 are not on account of any dowry demand and even otherwise, same were against husband, mother- in- law and father- in- law of revisionist.
21.I have also carefully perused the statement of Gurmeet Kaur and Pooja Joshi, who happens to be the neighbours of husband of revisionist. Both said witnesses have leveled allegation of frequent fights being taking place between revisionist and her husband and husband of revisionist beating her up on several occasions. Further, there are general allegations that on 05.10.2008, revisionist and her parents were beaten up by accused Neeraj, who happens to be the husband of revisionist and his family members.
22.Further, even in the statement of Sh.C.L.Ashwani and CR NO: 09/14 9/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 Smt.Nirmala, who happens to be parents of revisionist, the allegations to treat revisionist with cruelty are against accused Neeraj i.e.husband of revisionist, accused Jai Shree Pamnani and Sh.N.Pamnani, who are mother in law and father in law of revisionist respectively.
23.In the light of above discussion, there are no allegations against respondents of having treated the respondents with cruelty on account of dowry demands.
24.Further, there are no specific allegations made against any of the specific respondent with regard to entrustment of Istridhan of revisionist to them. There are general and vague allegations that in laws of revisionist used to treat her with cruelty. No specific instances of respondents being involved in treating the revisionist with cruelty have been highlighted in the complaint or in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
25.Therefore, on the basis of general and vague allegations, respondents cannot be charged for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC. In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi delivered in Pradeep Goyal and Ors. Vs. State and Anr., 2012(2) JCC 841 ( Para 5).
26.In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality or CR NO: 09/14 10/11 Madhu Pamnani Vs. Hanish Pamnani and anr.
CR NO: 09/14 infirmity in the impugned order of the ld.trial court in discharging the respondents for the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision file be consigned to record room. TCR be sent back alongwith a copy of revision petition.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 31.05.2014 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
CR NO: 09/14 11/11