Delhi District Court
(Shri) Surinder Singh And Anr vs State And Anr on 18 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08, WEST
DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Hem Raj, DHJS
i. CNR No. DLWT01-002138-2022
Cr. Revision Petition No. 55/2022
In the matter of :
Gaganpreet Singh
S/o Sh. Sarbjit Singh,
R/o House No. 40-L,
New Colony, Gurugram,
Haryana-122001 .....Revisionist
Versus
1. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Through its Ld. Prosecutor
Department of prosecution, THC.
2. Jaspreet Kaur
D/o Sh. Baba Ravinder Pal Singh Bedi
R/o G-10, Second Floor, Kirti Nagar
Extension, New Delhi-110015 ..... Respondents
ii. CNR No. DLWT01-002139-2022
Cr. Revision Petition No. 56/2022
In the matter of :
Balpreet Singh
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 1/19
S/o Sh. Sarbjit Singh
R/o House No. 40-L,
New Colony, Gurugram,
Haryana-122001 .....Revisionist
Versus
1. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Through its Ld. Prosecutor
Department of prosecution, THC.
2. Jaspreet Kaur
D/o Sh. Baba Ravinder Pal Singh Bedi
R/o G-10, Second Floor, Kirti Nagar
Extension, New Delhi-110015 ..... Respondents
iii. CNR No. DLWT01-002136-2022
Cr. Revision Petition No. 57/2022
In the matter of :
1.Surinder Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o House No. 40-L,
New Colony, Gurugram,
Haryana-122001
2.Satinder Kaur
W/o Sh. Satinder Singh
R/o House No. 40-L,
New Colony, Gurugram,
Haryana-122001 .....Revisionists
Versus
1. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Through its Ld. Prosecutor
Department of prosecution, THC.
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 2/19
2. Jaspreet Kaur
D/o Sh. Baba Ravinder Pal Singh Bedi
R/o G-10, Second Floor, Kirti Nagar
Extension, New Delhi-110015 ..... Respondents
iv. CNR No. DLWT01-002137-2022
Cr. Revision Petition No. 58/2022
In the matter of :
1. Sarbjit Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o House No. 40-L,
New Colony, Gurugram,
Haryana-122001
2. Manjeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Sarbjit Singh
R/o House No. 40-L,
New Colony, Gurugram,
Haryana-122001 .....Revisionists
Versus
1. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Through its Ld. Prosecutor
Department of prosecution, THC.
2. Jaspreet Kaur
D/o Sh. Baba Ravinder Pal Singh Bedi
R/o G-10, Second Floor, Kirti Nagar
Extension, New Delhi-110015
..... Respondents
Date of institution of revision : 10-03-2022
Date of reserving for order : 05-03-2025
Date of pronouncement of order : 18-03-2025
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 3/19
ORDER
1. This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid four re- vision petitions.
2. The revision petitions challenge a common order dated 17.06.2020 (impugned order) passed by the Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court-01 West) (referred as Ld. Trial Court) disposing the ques- tion of charge and framing the consequent charges on 23.02.2021 against the aforesaid revisionists for the offences u/s 498A/34 IPC. Revisionists namely Manjeet Kaur and Satinder Kuar were also charged for the offence u/s 406/34 IPC. Revision- ist Gaganpreet Singh was also charged for the offence u/s 354 A IPC as well.
3. Revisionists Balpreet Singh, Gaganpreet Singh, Sarabjeet Singh and Surinder Singh are the husband, devar, sasur and chacha sasur of complainant Jaspreet Kaur. Revisionists Manjeet Kaur and Satinder Kaur are the saas and chachi saas of com- plainant Jaspreet Kaur. Although Ms. Jaspreet Kaur @ Jolly, the nanad of the complainant was also charged with the offence by the Ld. Trial Court, but she has not preferred any revision peti- tion.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case as noted by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order, are that complainant Jaspreet Kaur, wife of revisionist Balpreet Singh, was married on 30.03.2009. In his complaint, she raised allegations regarding the Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 4/19 demand of dowry before the marriage by her sasur, saas, chachi saas and chacha sasur. On the next day of her marriage, her saas and chachi saas came to her room who asked for her jewellery on the pretext to keep it safe. She handed over her jewelery to them. After one week, despite request, she was not given her jew- elery for her use. When on 15.04.2011, when she demanded the jewelery, her saas, chachi saas and sasur refused the same stat- ing that jewelery was lying in the lockup. She was also taunted for not bringing the car in the marriage and that her chacha sasur and chachi saas demanded Honda City car along with her hus- band and saas. She was treated with cruelty and harassment and was compelled to do household chores.
5. She also raised allegations that on her honeymoon, the hus- band used to taunt her after drinking liquor and also used to beat her. Her photographs in short clothes were taken by him without her consent. She further alleged that on 15.08.2009 while she was sleeping the revisionist Gaganpreet lied next to her wearing her husband's shirt and tried to grab her forcefully. On being narrated the same incident her husband quarreled with her and slapped. Her both saas instigated her husband to beat her and pressurize her to bring the car. On 19.10.2009, he saas, chachi saas and nanad taunted her regarding cooking skills. She also narrated about the incidents on 25.10.2009, 20.10.2010, 05.04.2010 and 30.03.2011 which comprises of her harassment, demand of dowry even on the occasion of the birth of her son. She also again raised the allegations regarding incidents on 25.08.2011, 26.08.2011 and 30.08.2011.
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 5/196. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order and the consequent framing of charges on the following grounds:-
i. The allegations in the charge-sheet fail to make out any offence against the revisionist;
ii. That the order of Ld. Family Court, Gur-
gaon, Haryana in a case titled as "Balpreet Singh Gumber Vs. Jaspreet Kaur" wherein the Ld. Family Court dealt with similar allegations and held that no cruelty has been meted out to the complainant which was ignored by the Ld. Trial Court;
iii. That there is no demand of dowry as re-
vealed from the charge-sheet;
iv. That there are no specific instances of cru-
elty;
v. That the complainant did not raise any alle-
gations of the entrustment of her jewelery before fil- ing the FIR which amounts to an after-thought;
vi. That the allegations in the charge-sheet and documents do not make out any offence u/s 406 IPC;
vii. That the present FIR is a result of pre- con- ceived conspiracy by the complainant and the man- ner in which the allegations have been raised shows that the complaint had been prepared under the legal advice;
viii. That the allegations raised by the com- plainant are absurd and vague in particulars and thus the Ld. Trial Court wrongly framed the charges against the revisionists.Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 6/19
7. The Ld. Counsel for the revisionists argued in consonance with the aforesaid grounds and has relied upon the several judg- ments mentioned in the revision petition. He has also relied upon the following judgments during the course of arguments:-
a. Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3682.
b. Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2024) SCC On Line SC 2621.
c. Digambar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024) SCC OnLIne SC 3836.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Prosecutor supported the impugned order and subsequent framing of charges while arguing that no error has been committed by the Ld. Trial Court and further that at the stage of consideration of charge no roving inquiry is per- missible and if grave suspicion is made out from the oral and documentary evidence the court is permitted to frame the charges. He invited the attention of the court to the evidence available on the file of Ld. Trial Court.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the parties and pe- rused the record.
10. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the relevant law on the point of charge. In the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court culled out the following propositions on the point of charge:-
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 7/19
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of fram-
ing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the un- doubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the lim- ited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
(2) 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 fram- ing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced 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 evi- dence and the documents produced before the Court, any ba- sic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
11. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down out the following proposi- tions in this regard:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of fram-
ing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited pur- pose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to deter- mine 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 Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 8/19 properly explained, the court will be fully justified in fram- ing 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 evi- dence 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.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have commit- ted 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 be- fore 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 re- quired to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the in- gredients 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."
12. Again in the case of Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa, (2020) 17 SCC 556, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as un- der:-
"8.2. In the subsequent decision in S. Selvi [State v. S. Selvi, (2018) 13 SCC 455 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 710] this Court has summarised the principles while framing of the charge at the stage of Sections 227/228 CrPC. This Court has observed and held in paras 6 and 7 as under : (SCC pp. 458-59) Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 9/19 "6. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of judg-
ments...................that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 of the Code in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertain- ing to warrant cases) 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; where the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence pro- duced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his rights to discharge the accused. The Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecu- tion, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the statements and the documents pro- duced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial............."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547 the Apex Court held that as to what could be the ground of raising a grave or strong suspicion against the accused. It was observed as under:
"23. ....................... 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 ma- terial. 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 the 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 of- fence."
(Emphasis supplied) Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 10/19
14. In a nutshell, at the stage of the charge the court is permit- ted to shift the evidence for a limited purpose to decide if a prima facie offence is made out for the commission of offence or not. The court is not permitted to make a fishing or roving in- quiry. If the two views are possible on the evidence then the view favoring the accused should be adopted. If the court is of the opinion that the accused might have committed an offence then the court is justified in framing the charge. The aforementioned principles of law still hold the ground on the question of charge in a case. Hence, the question of the charge in this case shall also be decided keeping in view the said principles.
15. Let me first take up the plea of the revisionists that in view of the judgment of the Ld. Family Court, Gurgaon, Haryana in the divorce petition filed by the revisionist Balpreet Singh against the complainant wherein it was held that no cruelty has been meted out to the complainant on the similar allegations and no charge accordingly is made out in this case as well.
16. This court is of the opinion that the aforesaid argument raised by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists does not hold any water and is liable to be rejected. It is settled principle of law that a civil case is decided on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities whereas a criminal case is decided on the yardstick of beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of the Ld. Family Court has no relevance to this case. The court has also gone through the judgments relied by the Ld. Counsel for the re- visionist in this regard. However, a careful perusal of those judg-
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 11/19ments Digambar (supra), Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors (supra) and Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors (supra) would reveal that they are on different facts and circumstances and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the allegations therein do not make out any ingredients of the offence alleged against the husband and his relatives. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the allegations were vague and without any specific particulars. However, the facts of the case in hand would reveal that the complainant has alleged the specific particulars re- garding dates when the alleged instances of the cruelty or harass- ment had taken place. Not only this, the complainant has also stated that on 15.08.2009, the revisionist Gaganpreet Singh lied near to her in the bed room wearing her husband's shirt and tried to grab her forcefully. The court shall deal with the alleged in- stances in detail later on in this order which would demonstrate that the allegations raised by the complainant were not vague or evasive, but they were specific. Accordingly, the court declines the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
17. The Ld. Trial Court has also charged accused Gaganpreet Singh with the offence u/s 354 A IPC. The complainant alleged that on 15.08.2009 when she was sleeping, the revisionist Gagan- preet came into her room wearing the shirt of her husband and tried to grab her forcefully after lying near to her on the bed. Thus, the allegations against the accused Gaganpreet Singh re- garding Section 354 A IPC is very specific. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the veracity and truthfulness of the allegations cannot be judged and the court is only required to Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 12/19 decide if a grave suspicion is made out against the accused. Thus, from record it is clear that a grave suspicion u/s 354A IPC is made out against revisionist Gaganpreet Singh.
18. Some of the revisionists have been charged with the of- fence u/s 498A IPC. Section 498A IPC reads as under:-
"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."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Dara Lak- shmi Narayana Vs State of Telangana 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 passed observations on Section 498A IPC. The paragraph 15 is reproduced hereasunder:-
"15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines "cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause
(a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that "cru-
elty" means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause
(a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cru- elty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 13/19 of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce 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."
20. In view of the same, the allegations raised by the com- plainant which have been duly taken note of by the Ld. Trial court in the impugned order, would reveal that the complainant has given specific particulars about the various instances while giving specific dates where she has alleged that her in-laws in- cluding her husband have caused mental cruelty at least to her which may have caused danger to life, limb as well as to her mental or physical health. The allegations pertain to slapping by her husband, taunting her time and again regarding not bringing car, making demand of car, photographs being taken by her hus- band when she was in short clothes, her in-laws not taking any action against her devar Gaganpreet Singh when he tried to grab her in the bed room and rather beat her, taunting her for her cooking skills, physical assault by her husband and devar and putting her face on burning stove and other such like allegations. Although, one can argue that all these instances as raised by the complainant, may be normal altercations which may happen in household but a careful and combined reading would demon- strate that such instances repeatedly against the complainant and even on some petty issues, would have definitely troubled her mental health immensely. Accordingly, this court is of the opin- ion that the allegations u/s 498A IPC are made out against the re-
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 14/19visionists and the Ld. Trial Court did not commit any mistake by framing charge for the offence u/s 498A IPC against the accused.
21. The next argument raised by the counsel for the revision- ists that from the allegations, no offence u/s 406 IPC is made out against the accused as there were no allegations regarding the en- trustment of the property and breach of trust thereto. Section 406 IPC provides for the punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust. Section 405 IPC defines the offence of criminal breach of trust which reads as under:-
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or con- verts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal con- tract, express or implied, which he has made touching the dis- charge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
22. In the judgment of Hemlata vs State & Ors. dated 7 Au- gust, 2023, Hon'ble Mr Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, of High Court of Delhi discussed elaborately the concept of criminal breach of trust when stridhana is involved. The relevant observa- tions are reproduced here as under: -
"13. Thus when the wife entrusts her stridhana property with the dominion over that property to her husband or any other member of the family and the husband or such other member of the family dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that prop- erty or wilfully suffers any other person to do so, he commits criminal breach of trust. The essential ingredients for establishing an offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 and punishable under Section 406, IPC with sentence for a period upto three years or with fine or with both, are: [i] entrust- ing any person with property or with any dominion over property; [ii] the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriating or convert- ing to his own use that property; or dishonestly using or disposing Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 15/19 of that property or wilfully suffering any direction of law pre- scribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. The expression "entrustment" carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that prop- erty is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Entrust- ment is not necessarily a term of law......In view of the finding that stridhana property is the exclusive property of the wife on proof that she entrusted the property or dominion over the strid- hana property to her husband or any other member of the family, there is no need to establish any further special agreement to es- tablish that the property was given to the husband or other mem- ber of the family. It is always a question of fact in each case as to how property came to be entrusted to the husband or any other member of the family by the wife when she left the matrimonial home or was driven out therefrom. No absolute or fixed rule of universal application can be laid down in that behalf. It requires to be established by the complainant or the prosecution, depend- ing upon the facts and circumstances of the case, as to how and in what manner the entrustment of the stridhana property or domin- ion over her stridhana came to be made to the husband or any other member of the family or the accused person, as the case may be."
23. The record reveals that accused Jaspreet Kaur @ Jolly, Manjeet Kaur and Satinder Kaur have been charged for the of- fence u/s 406/34 IPC. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the complainant has clearly stated that on the next day of marriage, her mother in law, Chachi Saas and sister-in-law (all the aforesaid accused) came to her room and asked for the jew- ellery on the ground that her jewellery might be stolen and she should hand over the jewellery to them so that it could be kept in safe custody. She further stated that after one week, when com- plainant demanded the jewellery for the purpose of wearing the same, she was not given her jewellery and rather accused Jaspreet Kaur came to her room and threatened her with the dire consequences. She further alleged that later on she time and Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 16/19 again demanded the jewellery, but it was not handed over back to her. She specifically stated that on 15.04.2011 when she de- manded jewellery from her mother in law, Chachi Saas and her father in law, they refused to give it to her while stating that the same is in the locker. She further stated that her in-laws had kept her jewellery illegally and did not give the same to her despite her various demands. Thus, in view of the afore-said allegations, it is clear that the complainant had clearly stated about the en- trustment of her jewellery to the accused persons, who are her mother in law, Chachi Saas and sister in law and when she de- manded the jewellery, they refused to give her back. Accordingly the allegations clearly implies that not only there was entrustment by her but the refusal by her in laws, make out a criminal breach of trust. Therefore, the submissions of the Ld. Counsel that there are no allegations u/s 406 IPC, is not maintainable.
24. Ld. Counsel further argued that since the complainant did not raise any allegation regarding the entrustment of his jewellery before filing of the present FIR, therefore, the present FIR is nothing but an after thought. The court is not willing to accept the said contention of the Ld. Counsel as in a normal household, the wife does not raise any hue and cry when her stridhan and jewellery is not returned by her in-laws when she demands the same. The efforts of a married woman in her matrimonial home is to save her marriage and to continue in the relationship so as to avoid problems in the said relationship. Merely that the com- plainant did not raise any allegation of her jewellery not being re- turned by her in-laws, does not make her version as not believ-
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 17/19able and that too at the stage of consideration of charge. Accord- ingly, the contention of the Ld. Counsel does not have any merit and the same is not accepted.
25. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist further contended that the manner in which the complaint was drafted shows that some le- gal mind have gone into and drafted the complaint and therefore, the complainant's version in the complaint cannot be believed. The said contention of the Ld. Counsel is also liable to be re- jected for the reason that if the complainant gives the specific particulars of the instances of the cruelty or harassment etc with dates, it is said that some legal mind has drafted the complaint and when the complaint is devoid of any specific particular, the complaint obliviously is false. Therefore, if the complainant has mentioned the specific particulars of the instances of cruelty, ha- rassment etc of her, it cannot imply that the complaint has been drafted under the legal guidance. The same can be demonstrated by the revisionist through her cross-examination and at the stage of consideration of charge, her version cannot be disbelieved due to aforesaid reason.
26. In conclusion, it can be stated that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to go through the oral and docu- mentary evidence collected during the investigation to make out if any grave suspicion is made out for commission of a particular offence or not. The court, at the stage of charge, is not required to evaluate merely with a view to form it opinion whether the material on the record is sufficient to convict the accused persons or not.
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 18/1927. Having gone through the entire material available on record and in view of aforesaid discussions, this court is of the opinion that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against all the accused persons for the offences u/s 498A/34 IPC, charge against accused namely Jaspreet Kaur @ Dolly, Manjeet Kaur and Satinder Kuar for the offence u/s 406/34 IPC as well as charge u/s 354 A IPC against revisionist Gaganpreet Singh. Ac- cordingly, all the revision petitions stand dismissed as no ground to interfere in the order of the Ld. Trial Court, is made out.
28. Let all the revision petition files be consigned to record room.
29. TCR along with attested copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court. Digitally signed by HEM HEM RAJ Date:
RAJ 2025.03.18
16:29:20
+0530
Pronounced in the open
Court on 18.03.2025 (Hem Raj)
Addl. Sessions Judge -08(West)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
Crl. Rev No. 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2022 Page 19/19