Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 5 June, 2025
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 275/2024
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-004962-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Pal
2. Indu Devi
W/o Rakesh Kumar
Both Residents of:-
A-80, First Floor,
Gali No.5, Kh. No. 27/14,
Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi,
New Delhi-110041 .... Revisionists
VERSUS
The State
(NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:05 -0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 1/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of institution of the revision petition : 31/05/2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 07/05/2025
Date of judgment : 05/06/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed by the revisionists against the order dated 30/03/2024 ('hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ms. Alka Singh, Ld. MM (Mahila Court-03), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 650/2019 PS Nangloi u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC titled as "State Vs. Ankur Soni & Ors. "
In the present revision petition, the revisionists have prayed to call the Trial Court record, to set-aside the impugned order dated 30/03/2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court and to discharge the revisionists for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the revisionists are the accused in case FIR No. 650/2019 PS Nangloi u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. FIR was registered by the complainant Barkha Verma. Revisionists are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Vide impugned order, charge for the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:14 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 2/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC was framed against the revisionists. Revisionists have not filed any other or similar revision petition before any Court.
3. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. Grounds of revision- Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the facts that the present case is nothing but only bundle of false allegations without any corroborative substance against the revisionists. Ld. Trial Court has ignored the fact that revisionists are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and they never lived with the complainant. Marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused Ankur Soni in a very simple manner and it was love marriage. Ld. Trial Court has ignored the fact that the complainant has failed to make any specific allegation against the revisionists for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. There is no specific allegation against the revisionists in the complaint, FIR and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. All the allegations have been made only against the accused Ankur Soni. Allegations against the revisionists are general in nature and purpose of allegations was to harass her husband Ankur Soni and entire family members. Complainant has failed to disclose as to whether the revisionists were involved in demand of dowry, cruelty and keeping her jewellery. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly presumed and framed the charge against the revisionists. There is no allegation against the revisionists for beating and harassing the complainant. No MLC and medical document has been filed by the complainant. Complainant in her complaint has specifically made the allegations that her jewellery are lying with Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:19 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 3/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) her husband. It is also admitted by the complainant in her CAW complaint that she was living on rent and her husband left her after beating her and also took away her scooty. After the marriage, complainant and accused Ankur Soni started residing separately in rented accommodation and their son Aahan Soni was born while they were living in rented accommodation. Revisionists are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant just to settle the dispute with her husband Ankur Soni to pressurize him for divorce with mutual consent, so that, the complainant could extort money from him.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision petition advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists and Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order is not interlocutory order and the present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the revisionists in support of his contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:24 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 4/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
(a) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors.{(2022) 1 SCR 558}
(b) Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam {[2009] 9 SCR 902}
(c) Savitri Devi V. Ramesh Chand & Ors. {CRL. R. 462/2002 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 19/05/2003}
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 30/03/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"30/03/2024 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Complainant with Ld. Counsel.
Accused Rakesh and Indu Devi with Ld. Counsel.
Accused Ankur is absent.
An application seeking exemption from personal appearance has been moved on behalf of accused Ankur. Heard. Perused. Keeping in view the reasons stated in the application, exemption is allowed for today only.
Arguments on charge heard on behalf of all the accused persons as well as on behalf of the State.
It is submitted by the counsel for accused persons that complainant has not made any allegations against her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:30 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 5/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) as well as on the judgments on Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as per which, the general & omnibus allegations are not sufficient to frame charge. Thus, it is the submissions of the counsel, that complainant has falsely made this complaint without any ground.
Per contra, it is submission of the Ld. APP for State, that all the accused persons are liable to be charged for offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
Heard. Considered.
It is settled by catena of judgments that at the stage of charge framing, the allegations made in the complaint / FIR and other material relied in the police report u/s 173 Cr.PC only have to be considered on their face value and the Court at this stage is not expected to screen evidence; the Court is to only consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for 'presuming' that accused has committed the offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that would lead to conviction.
In view of the above, from the material placed on record there are specific allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against the husband, the mother-in-law and the father- in-law in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC and that she was harassed with respect to the demand of dowry.
She has also specifically alleged that all the accused persons kept all her jewellery articles including streedhan and did not return it even after she demanded it.
Hence, in view of these allegations and supported documents, prima facie sufficient material is available on record, to frame charge against all the accused u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
Charge is accordingly framed against the accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:35 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 6/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) Put up for appearance of accused Ankur and framing of charge against him on 17/05/2024.
Copy of order be given dasti.
(ALKA SINGH) MM (Mahila Court-03), West, THC, Delhi/30.03.2024 "
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise powers of revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or 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, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section
398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:41 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 7/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
7. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an interlocutory order.
The term "interlocutory order" as mentioned in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:46 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 8/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
8. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "
Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr." {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
"The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order"
as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term "interlocutory order" is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:52 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 9/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court".
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I." (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained, in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if an order is not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:00:57 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 10/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) another way, then the proceedings would continue; because, in our opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in the Criminal Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. V. Fazru" {(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
"Wharton's Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines interlocutory order thus:
"An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties."
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:01 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 11/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all."
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision petition have also been laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation" {(2017) 14 SCC 809} and it was held that :-
"15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order.Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:06 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 12/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind - an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC p.201, para11) "11. ..... It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:11 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 13/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no obligation to entertain a revision petition - such a petition can be rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order and in any case only one such eventuality is before us.
Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C."
It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Neelam Mahajan & Anr. V. The State & Ors." {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
"........ In this regard catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while holding that the meaning of the two words "final" and "interlocutory" has to be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose for which it is required. However, generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:16 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 14/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be attached to the order."
9. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have challenged the impugned order dated 30/03/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Vide impugned order dated 30/03/2024, order on charge was passed by the Ld. Trial Court and charge was framed against the accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Kumar Suneja case (supra) that order for framing of charge is an intermediate order.
Hence, the present revision petition qua order on charge/framing of charge is maintainable.
Now, this Court shall discuss the merits of the present revision petition.
10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant, FIR No. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:21 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 15/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) 650/2019 was got registered by the Police of Police Station Nangloi. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offence u/s. 498-A/406/34 IPC was submitted in the Ld. Trial Court on 04/08/2020 for trial of the accused Ankur Soni (husband), Rakesh Kumar (father-in-law) and Indu Devi (mother-in- law). Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 22/03/2021. In compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to all accused. Vide impugned order dated 30/03/2024, order on charge was passed by the Ld. Trial Court and charge for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC was framed against the accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 24/07/2024, charge was framed against the accused Ankur Soni in terms of order dated 30/03/2024, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide impugned order, it was observed by the Ld. Trial Court that prima-facie sufficient material is available on record to frame charge against all accused for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
11. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss the law relating to charge/discharge.
It is well settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other material relied by the police in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only has to be taken into consideration taking the evidence collected on its face value. At this stage, the Court is not expected to Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:25 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 16/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused on trial or not.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sajjan Kumar V. CBI" {(2010) 9 SCC 368} that :-
"21. On consideration of the authorities about scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the 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.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose 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.
(iii) The Court cannot 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 cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:30 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 17/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to 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. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal." Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:35 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 18/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bhawna Bai V. Ghanshyam" {(2020) 2 SCC 217} that :-
"...At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Manendra Prasad Tiwari V. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr." {2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057} that :-
"21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not.
The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:41 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 19/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.
22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:46 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 20/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding."
12. Now, this Court shall discuss the merits of the case.
As per complaint dated 27/05/2019 of the complainant, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused Ankur Soni on 15/02/2016 and they are having a son namely Ahaan Soni and accused Ankur Soni used to demand dowry from her and also used to beat and physically torture her. It is also mentioned in the complaint that her father-in-law and mother-in-law are also involved. It is also mentioned that after the one month of marriage, they started harassing and beating her. It is also mentioned in the complaint that accused Ankur Soni is having illicit relations with his niece Reetika and they used to threaten the complainant and complainant and her son are having the apprehension of their life from them. It is also mentioned in the complaint that accused Ankur Soni is having her gold articles. It is also mentioned in the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:50 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 21/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) complaint that at present, accused Ankur Soni is residing at A-80, Shiv Ram Park, Gali No.5.
Almost similar facts have also been mentioned in the charge-sheet of the present case.
In the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, it is mentioned that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the accused Ankur Soni on 15/02/2016 as per Hindu rituals and her parents spent about 10-11 Lakh in the marriage. It is also mentioned that after few days of marriage, her mother-in-law kept all her jewellery with her and she did not return the same despite demand. It is also mentioned that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law tortured her and demanded dowry and also beaten her. It is also mentioned that she alongwith her husband has resided in the tenanted premises for few months. It is also mentioned that on 03/11/2017, a son was born out of the said wedlock. It is also mentioned that on 26/05/2019 her husband and in-laws beaten her and she alongwith her son was thrown out of the matrimonial house.
13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss the case law relating to the mentioning of names of the family members i.e. in-laws in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. V. State of Telangana & Anr." {(2024) 12 SCR 559} that :-
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:01:55 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 22/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) "25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:02:00 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 23/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:02:05 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 24/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts."
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors. " {(2022) 1 SCR 558} that :-
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:02:09 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 25/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
19. ...... Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:02:14 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 26/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged."
Similar propositions were also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as (1) Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. V. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. {2025 INSC 562} and (2) Digambar & Anr. V. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. {2024 INSC 1019}.
14. It is admitted fact that the impugned order has not been challenged by the accused Ankur Soni. Hence, this Court shall not examine the veracity of the allegations made against him.
As per complaint dated 27/05/2019 of the complainant, after the marriage, she was beaten by the accused Ankur Soni number of times and her father-in-law and mother-in-law were also involved. In the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, it is mentioned that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law have beaten her. In the complaint dated 27/05/2019 of the complainant, almost all the allegations were made against the accused Ankur Soni. There is no medical document/ documentary evidence in the Trial Court record as well as present revision petition to show that complainant was beaten by the revisionists/accused persons.
It is mentioned by the complainant in the complaint dated Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:02:18 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 27/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) 27/05/2019 that her gold articles are lying with the accused Ankur Soni. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant that her all jewellery were kept by her mother-in-law and she did not return the same despite demand. Aforesaid averments as mentioned in the complaint and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory in this regard. Even, in the complaint dated 27/05/2019 and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., date, month and year of the same have not been specified by the complainant when the jewellery were kept by the accused Ankur Soni or Indu Devi.
Except the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, there is nothing on the record to show that jewellery articles were/are lying with the revisionists. There is nothing on the record as to what investigation has been conducted by the IO in this regard. There is also nothing on the record to show as to what effort was made by the IO to recover the same. Charge-sheet of the present case is silent in this regard.
In the complaint dated 27/05/2019, there is no allegation of demand of dowry against the revisionists/accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi. In the complaint dated 27/05/2019, allegations of demand of dowry are only against the accused Ankur Soni. It is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant that after the marriage, accused persons taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry and also demanded the dowry from the complainant. In the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, no specific date, month and year has been mentioned when the revisionists/accused persons taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry and also demanded the dowry Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:02:22 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 28/30 Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) from her.
It is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant that she alongwith her husband has resided in the tenanted premises for few months. In the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, it is not specified by the complainant as to for what period, she alongwith accused Ankur Soni has resided in the tenanted premises.
In the complaint dated 27/05/2019, it is mentioned by the complainant that she is residing at 145-A, Veena Enclave, Nangloi and at present, her husband Ankur Soni is residing at A-80, Shiv Park, Gali No.5. It is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant that on 26/05/2019, her husband and in-laws beaten her and she alongwith her son were thrown out of the matrimonial house. On the one hand, in her complaint, it is mentioned by the complainant that she is residing at 145-A, Veena Enclave, Nangloi. On the other hand, in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that on 26/05/2019, she alongwith her son were thrown out of the matrimonial house. Aforesaid averments as mentioned in the complaint and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory in this regard.
On perusal of the aforesaid complaint dated 27/05/2019, statement of the complainant u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet, it is clear that allegations against the revisionists are general and omnibus in nature. There is no medical document as well as documentary evidence on Trial Court record to substantiate the allegations of the complainant against the revisionists for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05 16:02:27 -0100 CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 29/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi) It is well settled law that charge cannot be framed only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus allegations as well as unsubstantiated assumptions and presumptions. For the purpose of framing charge against the accused persons, there should be sufficient incriminating material available on record. There is no incriminating/sufficient material available on Trial Court record for the purpose of framing the charge against both the revisionists. Prima- facie no case for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC is made out against the revisionists/accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi.
15. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws, the present revision petition of the revisionists is allowed. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30/03/2024 qua revisionists/accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi is set-aside. Revisionists Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi are discharged for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment.
Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:32 -
0100
Announced in the open Court
on 05/06/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 30/30