Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi Bhargav Etc. on 21 January, 2015
State Vs. Ravi Bhargav etc.
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT (E) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS :
DELHI
FIR No. 113/11
PS: Gandhi Nagar
U/S 498-A/406/34 IPC
STATE VS. RAVI BHARGAV ETC.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1 Ravi Bhargav Husband
2 Pramod Narayan Bhargav Father in law
3 Maya Bhargav Mother in law
4 Anuradha Bhargav Sister in law (nanad)
5 Ajay Bhargav Brother in law (devar)
1.Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that no case is made out against the accused persons and therefore, they are liable for discharge in view of general and vague allegations against the accused persons.
2. On the other hand, ld. APP for State has stated that there are specific allegations and the charge for the offence u/s 498- A/406/34 IPC and offence u/s 354 IPC against father in law be framed.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. There are specific allegations against the accused husband that he used to harass her and used to beat her on non fulfillment of demand of dowry. There is incident dated 1 State Vs. Ravi Bhargav etc. 15.07.2008 wherein, the accused husband made a demand of Rs. five lac in cash and harassed the complaint not being given the same. Therefore ingredient of section 498-A IPC is made out against the accused husband. Further, it is also alleged that Rs. 2 lacs were handed over to the accused husband. However, there is no allegation of not giving the same when demanded. Hence, ingredient of section 406 IPC is not made out against the accused husband Ravi Bhargav.
5. There is specific allegations against the mother in law Anuradha Bhargav that complainant kept all her jewellery articles with her and she did not return the same despite her repeated demands. Therefore ingredient of section 406 IPC is made out against the mother in law Maya Bharghava.
6. There are specific allegations against the father in law that in the month of August 2008, he entered into the room of complainant and close the door from inside and grabbed her physically and begged for developing sexual relationship with her. Hence, ingredient of section 354 IPC is made out against the father in law Pramod Narayan Bhargav.
7. There are no specific allegations against the brother in law (devar) Ajay Bhargav and sister in law (nanad)Anuradha Bhargav. The allegations made against them are general, unspecific, vague and undated. Therefore, both brother in law (devar) Ajay Bhargav and sister in law (nanad) Anuradha Bharghav are discharged for offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. 2
State Vs. Ravi Bhargav etc. Let matter be put up for framing of charge u/s 498-A IPC against the accused husband Ravi Bhargav, charge u/s 406 IPC against mother in law Maya Bhargav and charge u/s 354 IPC against the accused father in law Pramod Naraya Bharagav for 18.02.2015.
(RICHA MANCHANDA) MM/Mahila Court/East 21.01.2015 3 State Vs. Ravi Bhargav etc. FIR No. 113/11 PS Gandhi Nagar 21.01.2015 Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused absent.
Vide separate order passed on the point of charge, charge for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC is made out against accused husband Ravi Bhargav, u/s 406 IPC against mother in law Maya Bhargav and charge u/s 354 IPC against the accused father in law Pramod Narayan Bhargav and accused brother in law Ajay Bhargav and sister in law (nanad) Anuradha Bharghav are discharged for offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
Matter be put up for framing of charge 18.02.2015.
MM/Mahila Court/East 21.01.2015 4 State Vs. Ravi Bhargav etc. 5