Delhi District Court
Nishikant Verma And Ors vs The State on 13 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR. No. 128/2024
1. Nishikant Verma (husband)
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Verma
2. Ram Nivas Verma (father in law)
S/o Sh. Nand Kishore Verma
3. Smt. Anita Verma (mother in law)
W/o Sh. Ram Niwas Verma
4. Neha Verma (sister in law)
D/o Sh. Ram Niwas
5. Ankush Verma @ Vishal Verma (brother in law)
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas
All R/o H. No. 6/52,
Sector 2, Rajender Nagar,
Sahibabad, U.P.
..... Revisionists
Versus
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 07.06.2024
Date of Judgment : 13.12.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Revisionists/accused persons have filed the present revision petition CR No.128/2024 Nishikant Verma & Ors. vs. The State. Page No. 1 of 7 against impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed by Ms. Rishika Srivastava Ld. MM, Mahila Court1, East District, whereby the accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. Notice of the revision was issued to respondent/State.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that on the basis of statement of complainant Jyoti Verma, case FIR No. 234/2018 was registered at PS Gandhi Nagar for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. In her statement, complainant Jyoti Verma had stated that her marriage was solemnized with accused Nishi Kant Verma on 18.11.2013 and her parents had spent Rs.25 lakhs in her marriage. Thereafter, she started living at her matrimonial home i.e. 6/52, Sector 2, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, U.P. Since inception of her marriage, all the revisionists/accused persons i.e. her husband and other inlaws subjected her to cruelty on the pretext of bringing less dowry and also, asked her to bring dowry of Rs.10 lakh from her parents. She has also stated that all the accused persons have failed to return her istridhan, despite specific demand. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
4. Arguments on charge were heard and vide impugned order dated 26.03.2024, all the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC by the Ld. Trial Court. Being aggrieved with the same, revisionists/accused persons have preferred the present revision petition with the prayer to setaside the impugned order CR No.128/2024 Nishikant Verma & Ors. vs. The State. Page No. 2 of 7 dated 26.03.2024 and discharge the revisionists no. 2 to 5.
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionists/accused persons has argued that no demand of dowry was ever made by the revisionists/accused persons and no istridhan of the complainant is in possession of revisionists, therefore, revisionists are liable to be discharged. It is further argued that a compromise had taken place between the complainant and accused no. 1 whereby they had settled their disputes and complainant had started living with him separately from the other accused persons and thereafter, on 07.06.2016 the complainant gave a written request to DCP, East to close her matter and on 17.03.2017, she made another complaint to police in which she has stated that her husband had abandoned her on 01.08.2016. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that since the compromise has taken place between the complainant and the accused no.1 on 02.05.2016, no allegation against the other accused persons survives. He has further submitted that after the compromise dated 02.05.2016, other accused persons did not live with the complainant and hence, there was no occasion for commission of any offence upon her, as alleged. He has further submitted that first motion of divorce by mutual consent has already been granted, but now the complainant is not applying for second motion of divorce, despite having taken the settlement amount and a contempt petition has already been filed in this regard before Ld. Judge, Family Courts, East District. He has further submitted that as per the affidavit submitted by the complainant in the petition for divorce by mutual CR No.128/2024 Nishikant Verma & Ors. vs. The State. Page No. 3 of 7 consent, she has settled her dispute regarding Istridhan, dowry, articles, jewellery, clothing or any property or gifts and all other claims for present, past and future whatsoever. It is further submitted that impugned order is liable to be setaside and accused persons are liable to be discharged for the offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Additional P.P. for the State has submitted that complainant Jyoti Verma had made specific allegations of cruelty, demand of dowry and nonreturning of her istridhan articles against all the accused persons. He has further submitted that prima facie there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge under Section 498 A/406/34 IPC against the accused persons and it is a matter of trial as to whether those allegations are established or not. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has rightly charged all the accused persons and there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.03.2024.
7. After considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the revisionists and Ld. Additional P.P. for the State, material available on record and the impugned order, I am of the opinion that Ld. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the provision of law.
8. As per Section 498A IPC, any person being the husband or relative of husband of a woman, who subjects such woman to cruelty has to be punished with imprisonment under Section 498A IPC. The word 'cruelty' has been defined in the Section to be of two folds. Firstly, any willful conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause CR No.128/2024 Nishikant Verma & Ors. vs. The State. Page No. 4 of 7 grave injury or danger to life, or limb of the woman. The second category which falls, within the definition of cruelty is the harassment of woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or her relatives to meet such demands.
9. Thus, the careful consideration of Section 498A IPC provides that in case a woman has been subjected to cruelty i.e. she has been harassed for fulfillment of demands by husband or his relatives or she has been harassed for nonfulfillment of such demands, the offence under Section 498A IPC would be prima facie considered to have been committed by the accused persons.
10. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court has charged the accused persons under Section 498A IPC on the ground that Section 498A IPC is a non compoundable offence and in case the parties settle the dispute, the appropriate remedy is to approach to Hon'ble High Court for quashing of the FIR and any settlement does not wipe out or condone the cruelty alleged to have already been committed and a settlement does not imply that allegations regarding commission of cruelty are false and unreliable.
11. As per Section 406 IPC, whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. It states that anyone who dishonestly misapproriates or disposes of property that has been entrusted to them can be punished under Section 406 IPC.
CR No.128/2024Nishikant Verma & Ors. vs. The State. Page No. 5 of 7
12. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court has charged the accused persons under Section 406 IPC on the ground of specific allegation of entrustment and subsequent refusal to return. Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned about the fact that alleged affidavit furnished by the complainant before the Ld. Judge, Family Court does not state that she has received her jewellery back from the accused persons. The affidavit only states that respective goods and articles have been exchanged between the complainant and accused no.1.
13. I have carefully perused the material on record and chargesheet filed by the IO. Considering the fact that complainant Jyoti Verma has alleged that all the accused persons had demanded dowry of Rs.10 lakh; committed physical violence upon her; she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons on 10.08.2014 and forcibly dispossessed from her house; the accused persons had taken her jewellery and later, refused to return the same despite her repeated requests, I am of the opinion that prima facie, there is sufficient material available on record for framing of charge under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against the accused persons for demanding dowry from the complainant Jyoti Verma and torturing her for non fulfillment of their demands as well as nonreturn of her Istridhan articles. Settlement/compromise is no ground for discharge of the accused persons from the allegations of cruelty. Hence, in my opinion, the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court dated 26.03.2024 does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity. Charges under Section 498A/406 IPC has been rightly framed CR No.128/2024 Nishikant Verma & Ors. vs. The State. Page No. 6 of 7 against the accused persons. With these observations, the present revision petition stands dismissed.
14. Copy of this order alongwith Trial Court record be sent back to Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance.
15. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed SHAIL by SHAIL JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2024.12.13
16:47:26 +0530
Announced in the open court (Shail Jain)
today on 13th December, 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge
East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CR No.128/2024
Nishikant Verma & Ors. vs. The State. Page No. 7 of 7