Delhi District Court
(Pc Act) (Cbi) South District: Saket ... vs Lovely Sharma on 5 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number :43/15 & 8075/16
1 State
....................Revisionist
Versus
1. Lovely Sharma
W/o B.C. Sharma
R/o H. No. 135, Plot No. 115,
Sector-16, Great India Apptt.
Dwarka, New Delhi
2. Shashi Sharma
W/o Rajneesh Sharma,
R/o H. No. 161, Sector-28
Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Sukhinder Parmar
S/o Sh Baldev Singh Parmar,
R/o H. No. 227, RPS Colony,
DDA Flats, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi
4. Ruby Parmar
W/o Sukhinder Parmar,
R/o H. No. 227, RPS Colony,
DDA Flats, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi
5. Yogesh Sharma
S/o Sh Dev Sharma,
R/o 1142, Lane No. 35, DDA Flats
Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi
6. Chanderkanta Sharma,
W/o Sh Dev Sharma,
R/o 1142, Lane No. 35, DDA Flats
Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi.
.......................Respondent
Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7
Date of institution of Revision : 17/08/2015
Date of Allocation : 18/08/2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 05/10/2016
Date of Judgment : 05/10/2016
Particulars related to impugned order:
FIR No. : 336/06
U/s : 406/498A of IPC
PS : Mehrauli
Date of impugned order : 19.05.2015.
Name of learned Trial Court : Ms Ankita Lal,
Ld MM Mahila Court, South District
New Delhi
Memo of Appearance
Ld Addl PP for State.
Sh Arpit Batra and and Sh Pradeep Sharma
Ld counsel for respondents.
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on a revision petition filed against the order, dated 19.05.2015, passed by the Ld Trial Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
2 Present revision has been filed, on behalf of the State, against all the respondents against the order, dated 19/05/2015, vide which Ld Trial Court had framed the charges against respondent no.1, Lovely Sharma u/s 498A/506 (ii) of IPC, against respondent no. 5, Yogesh Sharma U/s 498A/406/323/506 (II) of IPC and against respondent no.6, Chanderkanta Sharma, U/S 498A of IPC. Vide said order, Ld Trial Court had discharged respondents Sukhinder Parmar and Ruby Parmar and respondents no.2 Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7 Shashi Parmar was already discharged vide order dated 08.09.2014, passed by the appellate Court of Sh Manoj Jain, Ld ASJ, in the revision petition No. 39/2014.
3 Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
4 Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of Complaint of Ms Sneh Sharma, FIR no. 336/06 U/s 406, 498A and 34 of IPC was registered in PS Mehrauli against her husband and in laws. Investigation was carried out and, after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed by the IO against accused persons U/s 498A/406/34 of IPC. After hearing the arguments on charge, Ld Trial Court on 31/05/2014, framed the charges against accused Yogesh Sharma, Smt Chanderkanta Sharma, Smt Lovely Sharma, Smt Shashi Sharma, Smt Ruby Parmar, Sh Sukehnder Parmar U/s 498A/34 of PC and also framed charges against Yogesh Sharma U/s 406 of IPC and U/s 323 of IPC.
5 Against the said order, accused Shashi Sharma preferred the revision and in the Criminal Revision No. 39/2014, Ld Appellate Court had discharged accused Shashi Sharma, vide its order dated 08.09.2014. Thereafter, another revision petition was preferred by the accused Yogesh Sharma, Smt Chandrakanta Sharma, Smt Lovely Sharma, Smt Ruby Parmar, Sh Sukhvinder Parmar. In said revision petition, Ld Appellate Court, while setting aside the order, dated 31/05/2014, remanded back the matter with directions to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties and to consider the question of charge against accused persons.
6 Thereafter, ld Trial Court, after hearing the fresh arguments, passed the impugned order, dated 19/05/2015, to the effect that, prima facie, Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7 offence U/s 498A/34 of IPC is made out against accused Yogesh Sharma, Chanderkanta Sharma and accused Lovely Sharma and, prima facie, offence U/s 406/323/34 is made out against accused Yogesh and, prima facie, offence U/s 506 (II) of IPC is also made against accused Lovely Sharma and Yogesh Sharma. On 20/05/2005, Ld Trial framed the additional Charge against accused Lovely Sharma and Yogesh Sharma U/s 506 (ii) of IPC. Vide order, dated 19/05/2015, Ld Trial Court discharged accused Ruby Parmar and Sukhinder Parmar.
7. Aggrieved from the said order, State has preferred this revision petition. It has been contended by Ld APP that Ld MM did not apply her judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and she did not appreciate the facts properly. It has further been contended that the documents i.e. statement of complainant, dated 26.06.2008, and also her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC and statement of other prosecution witnesses were not considered by Ld Trial Court. It has further been contended that Ld MM had failed to appreciate the fact that, at the stage of framing of charge, it has to be seen that prima facie case is made out or not. It has further been contended that there are specific allegations against accused Ruby Parmar, Shashi Sharma and Sukhinder Parmar which have not been considered properly by Ld Trial Court while discharging these accused persons.
8. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for respondents has contended that Ld Trial Court had rightly appreciated the facts and had rightly discharged respondents, namely, Ruby Parmar and Sukhinder Parmar, as the allegations made against them are very vague and general in nature.
9 I have given my thoughtful considerations to the aforesaid Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7 contentions, heard the arguments of Ld Counsel for revisionist and accused persons and carefully perused the entire trial court record, including the complaint and various documents on record.
10. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar samal & Ors AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366(1), it has been held as under :-
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges, under section 227 of the Code, 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;
(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 framing a charge and proceedings with the trial.
(3) The test of 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 of the Judge, which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mount-piece 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 Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7 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 Thus, in view of the above observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that if there is, Prima facie, sufficient material to frame the charge against the accused, then, charge can be framed against him. If, however, if there is not, Prima Facie, sufficient material to incriminate the accused with the allegations, which he is alleged to have committed, the accused should be discharged.
12. In the present matter, it has been argued that, facts were not considered properly by Ld Trial Court, when Ld Trial Court discharged accused, namely, Ruby Parmar and Sukhinder Parmar. It has further been argued that, there was sufficient material to frame the charges against both the accused persons , before Ld Trial Court. Thus the crux of arguments, on behalf of Ld APP is regarding the discharge of both these persons.
13 In the present matter, it may be pointed out that, accused, Ruby Parmar is sister in law of the complainant who is already married to accused Sukhinder Parmar. From the record file, it is clear, that they are residing separately from the complainant and her husband and they were not in a position to commit the offence as mentioned in the complaint regarding demand of dowry etc. 14 The tendency of falsely implicating the distant relatives, more particularly, the married sisters of the husband should be depreciated. The married sisters, most of the times, have no role to play Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7 in the married life of their brothers and their wives. Charge can be framed against them only if, prima facie, there is strong and sufficient material depicting their involvement. If, there is merely whisper of recitation in the complaint regarding the involvement of married sisters then charge should not be framed against the married sisters.
15 In view of these circumstances and above discussion, I am of the considered view, that Ld Trial Court was fully justified in discharging Sukhinder Parmar and Ruby Parmar in the present case and there is no illegality, irregularity and infirmity in the order, dated 19/05/2015. Revision petition filed by State qua accused Lovely Sharma, Shashi Sharma, Yogesh Sharma and Chanderkanta Sharma is also dismissed, being meritless, due to the above mentioned reasons as well as the reasons assigned in connected revision petitions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 47/15 titled as Lovely Sharma VS State & ors and Criminal Revision no. 48/15 titled as Yogesh Sharma Vs State and ors.
16 In view of the above discussions, the impugned order, dated 19/05/2015, is upheld, and I do not find any merit in the revision petition, filed, on behalf of the state and hence same is dismissed. 17 Present Revision Petiton is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observations.
18 A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court along with the trial court record.
19 File related to Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Ramesh Kumar)
on 5th of October, 2016 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts:
New Delhi
Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7
Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7
Criminal Revision No.43/15 & 8075 State VS Lovely Sharma and ors Page 9 of 7