Delhi District Court
Smt. Shashi Arora vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 12 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ05 : WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.R. No. 17/2015.
ID No. 02401R0157722015
In the matter of :
Smt. Shashi Arora,
W/o Shri S.S. Arora,
r/o A1/102A, Maa Shakti Apartment,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi. ............ Revisionist.
VERSUS
1. State (GNCT of Delhi)
C.A.W. Cell, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Rajita,
W/o Sh. Rajnish Arora,
D/o Sh. Harish Kumar,
r/o RZ287, BBlock, Satsang Road,
Nihal Vihar, Delhi. ............. Respondents.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 25.03.2015
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 27.07.2015
DATE OF DECISION : 12.08.2015
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the revision petition against the order dated 27.02.2015, vide which the ld. MM has ordered to frame charge u/s. 498A/406 IPC against the petitioner and also framed charge u/s. 498A/406 IPC.
2. The present revision petition has been filed on the ground that ld. MM has not applied judicial mind by framing charge and have not considered arguments. Ld. MM erred in framing charge against the petitioner. Ld. MM has CR No. 17/15. Page No. 1 of 5 failed to observe that respondent no. 2 (complainant) had demanded Rs. 17 lacs against her dowry articles. Ld. Trial Court has not gone through the chargesheet and the complainant has not mentioned any date in her complaint. Ld. Trial Court has ignored the order dated 05.11.2011 passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then Ld. Sessions Judge vide which the respondent no. 2 had already received Rs. 80,000/ in lieu of dowry articles and Section 406 IPC has already been waived. The complainant has not given date and month of alleged harassment or dowry demand in her complaint. Ld. Trial Court has totally overlooked the provisions of Section 198A Cr.P.C. It is prayed that order dated 27.02.2015 be set aside and petitioner be discharged.
3. I have heard ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the written arguments filed by the petitioner and Trial Court Record carefully.
4. Perusal of the Trial Court record reveals that chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner as well as husband of the complainant. The charge sheet has been filed on the basis of complaint given by the daughterinlaw of the petitioner to the effect that she was married on 01.10.2006 with Sh. Rajnish Arora S/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Arora. On 02.10.2006 at about 10:00 AM her sisterinlaw and motherinlaw taunted her about not receiving of good clothes and demanded new clothes and cash. There are also allegations made by the complainant that she gave one gold set, four gold bangles, one pair of ear rings to the petitioner which she got from her parents and she also handed over the gold ornaments gifted by CR No. 17/15. Page No. 2 of 5 her in laws family to her. There are also allegation that petitioner had taken all the jewellery articles without giving intimation to her. Complainant also leveled allegation against her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and her husband that they forced her to do entire work after coming to know about her pregnancy. There are also allegation that the petitioner has shifted the television set in her room from the room of the complainant. It is also mentioned by the complainant in her complaint that when she became pregnant on coming to know that, the petitioner said about went to Vrindavan. There are also allegation that petitioner made complainant to her son regarding not doing any household work by the complainant and then she was beaten by her husband. There are also allegation made by the complainant that on birth of her daughter, clothes and articles were given to the petitioner and her husband. It is also mentioned that on 29th April her husband has demanded money from her, when the complainant refused to give the money then she was beaten by the petitioner and her husband. It is also mentioned that petitioner closed her mouth and her husband gave beatings to her in the room.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that ld. Trial Court has ignored the order dated 05.11.2011 passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, the then Ld. Sessions Judge in which the respondent no. 2 had already received Rs. 80,000/ in lieu of dowry articles and Section 406 IPC has already been waived.
I fail to appreciate this contention, as order dated 05.11.2011 was passed by the ld. Sessions Judge at the time of granting bail to the husband of the complainant. I am of the view as how this order is helpful to the petitioner at the CR No. 17/15. Page No. 3 of 5 time of framing of charge. Thus, this contention carries no force.
6. It is also contended by the petitioner that the Ld. Trial Court has totally overlooked the provisions of Section 198A Cr.P.C.
Section 198A reads as under: Section 198A. Prosecution of offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father's or mother's brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.
I fail to appreciate that how this contention is helpful to the petitioner when the present complaint is made by daughterinlaw of the petitioner/complainant. Thus, this contention carries no force.
7. It is also contended by the petitioner that complainant has not mentioned any specific date of incident in the complaint.
Perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant has given specific dates, when she was given beatings and when she was harassed. I am of the view that if for some incidents complainant has not given specific date, then it is not helpful to the petitioner at the time of framing of charge. CR No. 17/15. Page No. 4 of 5
8. No cogent or convincing reason is disclosed entitling discharge of the accused persons. Further, at the stage of framing of Charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecution purposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The Apex Court in a number of cases had held that at the stage of framing the charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and material by the court is not required; nor the adequacy of the evidence can be seen at this stage as it would amount to premature appreciation of evidence. The same view has been held by their Lordship in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 Crl.L.J.746 and Omwati Vs. State through Delhi Admn,. 2001 (2) Crimes 59.
9. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 27.02.2015. There are sufficient material on record to frame charge u/s. 498A/406 IPC against the petitioner. The ld. MM has rightly framed charge against the petitioner u/s. 498A/406 IPC holding that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge u/s. 498A/406 IPC. The revision petition is without any merits and same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
on 12.08.2015 (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)
ASJ05 (West)/THC/Delhi
CR No. 17/15. Page No. 5 of 5