Delhi District Court
Pawan Bhatt vs . State on 17 November, 2014
Pawan Bhatt Vs. State
CR NO: 82/14
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR NO.: 82/2014
Shri Pawan Bhatt
S/o Sh.Kashi Nath Bhatt
R/o B3, Sec45
Faridabad
Haryana ... Revisionist/Petitioner
Versus
State
Date of institution of revision petition : 02.07.2014
Date on which order reserved : 12.11.2014
Date on which order pronounced : 17.11.2014
ORDER
1. Revisionist/petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 25.03.2014 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) of the ld.trial court vide which charge under section 498A/406 IPC was framed against the revisionist/petitioner.
2. Notice was issued to State.
3. Sh.Aditya Kumar, Ld.Addl.PP after accepting notice of the CR No. 82/14 1/6 Pawan Bhatt Vs. State CR NO: 82/14 revision petition submitted that he will argue the revision petition straightway without filing any reply.
4. I have heard ld.counsel for revisionist and Ld.Addl.PP for State. I have also summoned the trial court record and have carefully perused the same.
5. It was submitted by the ld.counsel for revisionist that as per allegations made by complainant in her complaint dated 07.09.2009, the acts of cruelty and criminal breach of trust pertain to period from date of marriage i.e. 05.12.2001 till 15.01.2006 when the parties last resided together. Thereafter, there are no allegations of cruelty against revisionist/petitioner or of having committed any criminal breach of trust. It was further submitted that both offence u/s 498A/406 IPC are punishable with maximum of 03 years of imprisonment. Therefore, as per Section 468 (2)(c) Cr.P.C., the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence beyond period of 03 years from 15.01.2006. It was further submitted that ld. trial court had taken cognizance of the offence on 24.01.2013 i.e.well beyond the period of limitation and no application was filed by State seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, it was submitted that since ld.trial court could not have taken cognizance as offences were barred by limitation, therefore, ld.trial court has committed grave CR No. 82/14 2/6 Pawan Bhatt Vs. State CR NO: 82/14 illegality and infirmity in framing charge against revisionist u/s 498A/406 IPC.
6. On the other hand, ld.Addl.PP for state submitted that no illegality or infirmity could be found in the order of the ld.Magistrate as offence of cruelty is a continuing offence and the ld.trial court rightly took the cognizance of offence in 2013 and framed charge, based upon the material on record. Accordingly, prayer was made to dismiss the revision petition.
7. The short question involved in the present revision petition is whether the ld.trial court could have taken cognizance of the offence u/s 498A /406 IPC in the light of bar contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C. Both offence u/s 498A/406 IPC are punishable with three years imprisonment. Therefore, as per Section 468 (2)(c) Cr.P.C., no court could have taken cogniance beyond three years from the date of offence.
8. As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned, offence of criminal breach of trust is made out when the entrusted articles despite demand are not returned. As per complaint dated 07.09.2009, istridhan articles were entrusted on 05.12.2001 to revisionist. Regarding demand, it is stated in the complaint that istridhan articles were demanded on many occasions but the same were not returned and it is specifically alleged in the complaint that CR No. 82/14 3/6 Pawan Bhatt Vs. State CR NO: 82/14 istridhan articles were demanded when complainant was going to Japan but again the same were refused.
9. With regard to going to Japan, complainant has alleged that she has gone to Japan, firstly from August, 2002 till 28.04.2003 and secondly, from 28.02.2005 till 15.05.2005. Further, as per allegations made in the complaint, complainant had stayed with revisionist till 15.01.2006. Therefore, from the allegations, it could be made out that demand for return of istridhan articles was either made at the time of going to Japan that is either in August, 2002 or February, 2005 or at the most between period from 05.12.2001 till 15.01.2006 when complainant lastly resided with revisionist. Therefore, even if last date of offence of criminal breach of trust is taken as 15.01.2006 then also cognizance should have been taken by 14.01.2009 i.e.within the period of three years. However, in the present case, cognizance has been taken on 24.01.2013 when the offence u/s 406 IPC was hopelessly barred by limitation.
10.As per Section 473 Cr.P.C., no application for condonation of delay was filed by prosecution. Hence, ld.trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offence u/s 406 IPC on 24.01.2013 being barred by limitation and committed grave illegality in framing of charge against revisionist u/s 406 IPC.
CR No. 82/14 4/6Pawan Bhatt Vs. State CR NO: 82/14
11.As far as offence u/s 498A IPC is concerned, it is settled principle of law that offence under section 498A IPC is a continuing offence. Till 15.01.2006, there are allegations made against revisionist that he was treating the complainant with cruelty on account of dowry demands. There are further allegations that revisionist obtained fraudulent decree of divorce on 30.05.2006 against the complainant for which she had preferred an appeal in 2008 before the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi.
12.In supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 27.02.2012 it is alleged by the complainant that in August, 2010, she had met revisionist at Women Cell, Nanakpura where she was abused by her husband. Therefore, all these acts i.e.obtaining of exparte decree of divorce by revisionist and filing of appeal by complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and of abusing complainant by revisionist at Nanakpura, amounts to act of cruelty.
13.The obtaining of exparte decree of divorce amounts to mental cruelty and harassment to complainant and further prosecuting the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to get exparte decree of divorce set aside also amounts to mental harassment and finally act of abusing complainant in 2010 also amounts to cruelty within the definition of Section CR No. 82/14 5/6 Pawan Bhatt Vs. State CR NO: 82/14 498A IPC. Therefore, last act of cruelty took place in August, 2010 and taking of cognizance on 24.01.2013 was within the period of three years from the last act of cruelty. Hence, ld.trial court did not commit any wrong in framing charge u/s 498A IPC against revisionist. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the ld.trial court qua framing of charge under section 498A IPC against revisionist.
14.In the light of above discussion, revision petition is partly allowed and order of framing of charge qua offence under section 406 IPC is set aside and revisionist is discharged for the said offence. However, with regard to offence u/s 498A IPC, revision is dismissed. Revision file be consigned to record room.
15.TCR be sent back to ld.trial court alongwith a copy of this order.
16.Parties are directed to appear before the ld.trial court on the date fixed.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 17.11.2014 ASJ01, Dwarka
New Delhi
CR No. 82/14 6/6