Delhi District Court
Manjinder Kaur vs State Of Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 57/2024
CNR NO. DLND01-000759-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Manjinder Kaur
W/o. Late Dilber Singh
R/o. D-4/13B, Vasistha Park,
Street no. 5, Sagarpur, South West,
Delhi- 110046.
.......Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (NCT of Delhi)
2. Gian Kaur
W/o. late Sh. Avtar Singh
R/o. B-1/132, Ambala Road,
Near under Bridge,Rajpura,
Patiala, Punjab.
........Respondents
Instituted on : 27.01.2024
Reserved on : 01.04.2025
Pronounced on :01.04.2025
Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 1 of 15
JUDGEMENT
01. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present revision petition filed on behalf of revisionist challenging the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-02), Patiala House Court, New Delhi in case bearing CC No. 10678/2021, FIR No. 148/2020, Police Station Sagarpur, titled as ' State v. Gian Kaur', whereby the Ld. Trial Court has discharged the accused/respondent under Section 498A IPC.
02. Brief facts, as per prosecution version, may be taken note of: the revisionist is the daughter in law of the respondent. The present case FIR was registered on the written complaint dated 13.08.2018 made to CAW Cell. After counselling, the matter was sent to the concerned police station and accordingly, the present FIR was registered on 12.03.2020. The revisionist got married to son of the respondent on 15.01.2017. On 01.11.2017, husband of the revisionist had expired. Thereafter, the respondent and other relatives started harassing the revisionist, as they wanted to grab the property of her husband. On 02.05.2018, the accused persons/respondents started beating the revisionist and they threw her from the matrimonial house and since then she was residing with her parents.
03. The FIR was lodged with the allegation of beating and harassment by 12 persons including the respondent. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed only against the respondent and remaining suspects were kept in Column No. 12 as no evidence was found against them. In Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 2 of 15 the suspect list, the suspect no. 2-5 were sister in laws of the revisionist and the suspect no. 7 to 12 were close relative. In the complaint, the relation of the remaining suspect was not specified. The Ld. Trial Court chose not to summon the suspect no. 2 to 12.
04. Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order discharged the respondent and observed that no prima case is made out against her. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by Trial Court is reproduced as under:-
"In the entire complaint as well as in her statements, complainant has not alleged any harassment for dowry by her in-laws including accused Gian Kaur. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons have falsely grabbed the properties of her husband after his death and that she was abused, taunted and threatened by them. The complainant has failed to narrate any single incident of abuse or threat by the accused. Complainant has also alleged that she was mercilessly beaten on 02.05.2018 and was thrown out of her matrimonial house. In her complaint, she has alleged that she was beaten on 02.05.2018 and was thrown out of her house, while in her written reply to notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she herself left her matrimonial house on 02.05.2018 due to harassment by her in-laws. She has also not provided any medical document regarding the injuries sustained by her on 02.05.2018. No photograph of injury has been provided. No prior complaint has been filed. Apart from the incident dated 02.05.2018, no other specific instance has been mentioned by the complainant in her entire complaint. As per her own complaint, a civil suit is pending between the parties before the concerned court for declaration regarding the properties of her husband. It appears that a property dispute has been given the colour of cruelty and harassment by the complainant. The accused is a 80 year old lady and the allegations of physical abuse by her rather seems unbelievable. Further, even if the entire allegations are considered to be true, it cannot be said that the conduct of the accused in any manner drove the complainant to commit Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 3 of 15 suicide or caused any grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. In the opinion of the court, no prima facie case is made out against the accused Gian Kaur u/s. 498A IPC."
05. The revisionists are aggrieved with the impugned order and have assailed the same on various grounds which can be summarized as under:-
(i) That Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and same is liable to be set-aside;
(ii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the legal provisions of cruelty under Section 498 A IPC.
(iii) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the veracity of the allegations in the complaint is a matter of evidence to be established during the trial;
(iv) That Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order merely based on assumptions and presumptions;
(v) That Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that at the stage of consideration on charge, the court are not supposed to deal into probative value of evidence and no mini trial is permitted at the stage of charge.
(vi) That Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order without hearing the revisionist and it is against the principal of natural justice.
06. Ld. Counsel for revisionists argued on the line of grounds as taken in instant revision petitions. Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law in passing the impugned order against the revisionists. It was argued that the respondent has beaten and harassed Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 4 of 15 the revisionist. It is further argued that there are specific allegations of cruelty on 02.05.2018. It was further argued that the alleged offence under section 498A IPC are made out against the respondent. On the strength of these arguments, revisionist pray for setting aside of the impugned order.
07. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the same has been passed keeping in view the facts and material available on record and therefore the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further argued that allegations in the FIR are general and vague in nature. It is further submitted that there is a property dispute between the revisionist and the respondent and a civil suit is already pending.
08. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record.
09. The law regarding the material to be considered for framing of charge has been reiterated in a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts. In the landmark judgment of Sajjan Kumar and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 20th September 2010, judgments of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. reported as (1979) 3 SCC IV and Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2002) 2 SCC 135 in reference to framing of charge were discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was observed as under:
Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 5 of 15 "On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principle emerged:
(1) The Judge while considering the question of framing of 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.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclosed 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.
(3) 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 trial.
(4) 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.
(5) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of 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.
(6) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the materials and evidence on Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 6 of 15 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. (7) If two view are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial court 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."
10. Since the statutory provision of section 498A IPC has an important bearing in the present matter, therefore, same is being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience :-
" Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code :-
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
11. If the allegations made by respondent/complainant are tested upon the touchstone of aforesaid statutory principles, I am of the considered view that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly discharged the respondent. It is not in dispute that the revisionist was married to son of the respondent. After death of the husband of the revisionist, she has filed a civil suit no. 880/2018 before Civil Court, Rajpura, Punjab. The suit has been filed for Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 7 of 15 declaration to declare the revisionist as owner of half share of the property. The property dispute between the revisionist and respondent is not in dispute.
12. The allegations against the respondent are general and vague in nature. In the entire complaint, the allegations are bereft of any specific details as to time and place. In the FIR, it is alleged that on 02.05.2018, the revisionist was mercilessly beaten and thrown out of matrimonial house. The revisionist was allegedly beaten by all the alleged persons. The investigating agency had not found any evidence against other 11 alleged persons and they were kept in column no. 12. The Ld Trial Court concurred with the opinion of the investigating agency and decided not to summon the alleged persons.
13. The revisionist had left with her matrimonial house on 02.05.2018 and started residing with her parents. The revisionist had not made any police complaint regarding the incident dated 02.05.2018. There is no medical document to support the claim of being beaten by the respondents. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent is 80 year old senior citizen. Instead of making the police complaint, the revisionist filed a civil suit against the respondent to claim share in the property of her husband. The complaint on which the present case FIR was registered was filed 13.08.2018.
14. At the stage of consideration on charge, the trial court has power to shift and weigh the prosecution evidence for the limited purpose of Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 8 of 15 finding out whether or not the prima facie case against the accused has been made out. While appreciating the prosecution evidence, the court should take the holistic view after considering the entire evidence. It is the settled proposition of law that in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 227 Cr.P.C, the judge 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 document produced before the court.
15. At the stage of consideration on charge, the court has to consider the evidence; oral and documentary, produced with the charge sheet. The charge should be framed not on mere suspicion but on the facts giving rise to grave suspicion of the accused having committed the offence. If the entire material placed before the court while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, the court will be fully justified to discharge the accused. The law is very much settled that if the entire evidence / material placed with the charge sheet, taken on its face value, does not give rise to grave suspicion against the accused, then, the accused should be discharged.
16. Reliance is placed upon the judgement titled and reported as Deepak Bhai Jagdish Chandra Patel. v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16SCC 547, "23.At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the Court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The Court must indeed sift the material Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 9 of 15 before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the Court dons the mantle of the Trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence."
17. The Apex Court in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Anr. v. State of UP (2021) 5SCC 435 put emphasis upon the trial courts to be more vigilant while appreciating the facts at the stage of consideration of charge and made following observations:
"22.Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8SCC 470:"191...One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 10 of 15 pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost,for no fault of his..."
18. In recent Criminal Revision Petition titled and reported as Ankush & Anr. v. State Crl. Rev. P. No. 398/2024, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Judge Delhi High Court observed that :
32.Clearly, it is more than evident from the record, the subsequent complaint and the manner in which they have been made that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioners. It is a fit case where even a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. In such cases, where the false implication is is writ large, no fruitful purpose would be served in making the petitioners go through the entire trial which in fact, would be a travesty of justice. The Courts cannot be the silent spectators or a loudspeaker to echo whatever has been presented before it in the Chargesheet.
19. The complainant/revisionist did not make any specific allegations against the respondent for offence under section 498A IPC, therefore, in the absence of any material on record, no charge under section 498A IPC could have been framed against said respondent on the basis of allegations of general and omnibus in nature.
20. In my view, only vague and general allegations have been made by complainant/revisionist in support of offence under section 498A IPC and no specific role in furtherance of said general allegations have been attributed upon the respondent. This simply leads to a situation where the specific role played by the respondent cannot be ascertained in the Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 11 of 15 furtherance of the offence. The allegations are general and omnibus and do not give rise to any grave suspicion against the respondent. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 2022 SCC Online SC 162 (Crl. Appeal No. 195/2022 decided on 08.02.2022) and the important observations are as follows:
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 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. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. 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.
20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 12 of 15 to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.
21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
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 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.
21. Though it can be argued that on the basis of statement of complainant, a suspicion arises against the revisionists, however it is a settled law that mere suspicion shall not suffice for framing charge against any accused and the test is that of 'grave suspicion'. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 366, wherein it was held that the Court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. It has been further held that where the materials placed before the Court disclosed a grave suspicion against the Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 13 of 15 accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion, but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
22. If the present case is tested upon the touchstone of settled principles of law, I am of the considered view that no grave suspicion arises against the respondent Gian Kaur so as to charge her for offence punishable under section 498A IPC. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the finding of Ld. Trial Court observed in the impugned order and accordingly, the instant revision petition stands dismissed.
23. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial court along with copy of judgment.
24. The revision files be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally compliance. signed by Pawan Pawan Kumar Announced in Open Court Kumar Date:
2025.04.01 16:43:54 On 01st April, 2025 +0530 (Pawan Kumar) ASJ /Spl. FTC / PHC / NDD New Delhi /01.04.2025 Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 14 of 15 Crl Rev. No. 57 of 2024 Manjinder Kaur vs. State & Anr. Page No. 15 of 15