Delhi District Court
State vs . Desh Raj And Others on 6 August, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS SHIVALI SHARMA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE/MAHILA COURTS,
WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
STATE VS. Desh Raj and others
FIR NO: 327/03
P. S. Uttam Nagar
U/s 498A/406 IPC
Dated 06.08.2012
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.The Present FIR has been registered against 5 accused persons. Their names and relations with the complainant are as under: Accused no. Name Relationship with complainant Accused no. 1 Desh Raj Father in law (deceased) Accused no. 2 Mohar Shree Mother in law (P.O) Accused no. 3 Rajeshwari Nand Accused no. 4 Amar Singh Nandoi Accused no. 5 Dara Singh Husband (P.O.)
2. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of hand State Vs. Desh Raj and others, FIR No. 327/03 1/5 2 written complaint made by the complainant Santoshi Devi with CAW Cell. The allegations as contained in the complaint are that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused Dara Singh (since P.O.). Sufficient dowry articles along with cash were given in the marriage. However, after one month of the marriage her husband demanded Rs 10,000/ for starting the business of flour grinding. She fulfilled the said demand after bringing the money from her brother. However, her husband became more greedy and started raising demands every now and then. When the brother of the complainant could not fulfill the said demands, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and her husband went to reside with his sister and brother in law namely accused Rajeshwari and Amar Singh. After some time when she returned to her matrimonial home, again demand was raised by her husband as there was some electricity raid in his factory. She was also threatened that if the same demand was not fulfilled, she would not be permitted to live in her matrimonial home. Since the parental family of the complainant could not fulfill the said demand, State Vs. Desh Raj and others, FIR No. 327/03 2/5 3 complainant was beaten by her husband and thrown out of her matrimonial home and again he went to reside with his sister and brother in law. It has been alleged that the demands are being raised from the complainant by her husband at the behest of her sister in law and her in laws have also been demanding a motorcycle and a chain.
3. Arguments on the point of charge have been heard and record has been carefully perused.
4. Perusal of entire complaint shows that there is no specific allegation against accused Rajeshwari and Amar Singh. Thre are only allegations that whenever the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial home, her husband went to reside with these two accused persons. There is also an allegation that complainant doubted that the demands were being raised from her by her husband at the behest of accused Rajeshwari. The allegations made against these two accused are vague and omnibus. A general allegation has been made that a motorcycle and a chain were demanded by accused Rajeshwari without giving any specific date, time and year when the said demand was made. There is also no State Vs. Desh Raj and others, FIR No. 327/03 3/5 4 allegation that this demand was followed by any kind of harassment to the complainant on account of nonfulfillment of the same. Accordingly, in my opinion, no prima facie case u/s 498A IPC is made out against accused Rajeshwari or accused Amar Singh. Both of them are, accordingly, discharged from the offence u/s 498A IPC. Accused Desh Raj has already expired. Accused Dara Singh and Mohar Shree are already P.O. Accordingly, no order are passed in repect of them.
5. As regards the offence u/s 406 IPC there is not even a single allegation of entrustment of dowry articles made against any of the accused persons or their misappropriation by them. In the absence of these allegations, no prima facie case u/s 406 IPC is made out accused accused Rajeshwari and accused Amar Singh. Both of them are, accordingly, discharged from the offence u/s 406 IPC. Accused Desh Raj has already expired. Accused Dara Singh and Mohar Shree are already P.O. Accordingly, no order are passed in repect of them.
6. Accused Rajeshwari and Amar Singh are ,accordingly, discharged for offences u/s 498A/406 IPC. However, their State Vs. Desh Raj and others, FIR No. 327/03 4/5 5 B/Bs & S/Bs shall remain extended for a period of six months u/s 437A IPC.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY ON 06.08.12 (SHIVALI SHARMA)
MM (Mahila Court),West/Delhi
State Vs. Desh Raj and others, FIR No. 327/03 5/5