Delhi District Court
Cr No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi vs . State & Another. on 3 December, 2013
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
Criminal Revision No. 179/2012.
Mr. Sanjay Modi,
R/o 821, New Millenium Apartment,
23, Plot No. 7C, Dwarka,
New Delhi. ... Revisionist.
Vs.
1. State of Delhi,
Through PS Dwarka,
New Delhi.
2. Mrs. Bharti Raina,
R/o 602, Sanskriti Apartment,
Sector 10A, Gurgaon, Haryana. ... Respondents.
Date of Institution. : 21.12.2012.
Arguments Advanced On. : 16.11.2013.
Date of Order. : 3.12.2013.
3.12.2013.
Present: None for revisionist (accused no. 1 before the ld.
Trial Court).
Sh. Pramod Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for
State/respondent no. 1.
None for respondent no. 2 (complainant before the ld. Trial Court).
Page No. 1 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
The present revision petition u/s 397 CrPC is fixed for orders, for today.
Arguments on the present revision petition were heard on 16.11.2013. I had heard Sh. Rakesh Pathak, ld. counsel for revisionist (accused no. 1 before the ld. Trial Court) and Sh. Aditya Kumar, substitute ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no. 1 and none had appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 (complainant before the ld. Trial Court) to address arguments.
Perused the entire record, including TCR, carefully.
:: ORDER ::
1. The challenge in the present revision petition u/s 397 CrPC, filed by the revisionist (husband/accused no. 1), is to the impugned order dated 20.11.2012 of Ms. Tyagita Singh, ld. MM (Mahila Court), Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "State Vs. Sanjay Modi & Others", FIR No. 228/09 of PS Dwarka, u/s 406/498A/34 IPC.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondent no. 2 (complainant before the ld. Trial Court) was married with revisionist (accused no. 1 before the ld. Trial Court) on 7.3.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and after marriage, both the parties lived in their matrimonial home in Dwarka, upto March 2004. Further, a complaint Page No. 2 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
dated 27.3.2009 for the offence u/s 406/498A/34 IPC was filed by the respondent no. 2 before the Court of ld. ACMM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, and vide order dated 28.4.2009, Sh. Sanjay Jindal, the then ld. ACMM1, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, directed the SHO, PS Dwarka to register an FIR in the matter under appropriate provisions of law and to submit his report, after due investigation. Thereafter, on 23.7.2010, the charge sheet in the present case was filed against the three accused persons, namely, accused no. 1 Sanjay Modi (revisionist herein and husband of respondent no. 2), accused no. 2 S.K. Modi (father in law of the respondent no. 2) and accused no. 3 Basanti Modi (mother in law of the respondent no. 2). Vide order dated 25.10.2010, the concerned ld. MM took the cognizance for the offence u/s 190 (1) (b) CrPC punishable u/s 498A/406 IPC. Vide impugned order dated 20.11.2012, accused no. 2 S.K. Modi (father in law of the respondent no. 2) and accused no. 3 Basanti Modi (mother in law of the respondent no. 2), were discharged and charge u/s 498A/406 IPC was framed against the accused no. 1 Sanjay Modi, which has been impugned herein by the revisionist Sanjay Modi (accused no. 1 before the ld. Trial Court).
3. The first ground taken by the revisionist is that the complaint dated 27.3.2009 pertaining to allegations Page No. 3 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
regarding offences u/s 498A/406 IPC are with respect to 11 month period upto March 2004, when the respondent no. 2 resided with the revisionist at her matrimonial home and taking of cognizance for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC, which are punishable with imprisonment upto for 3 years, vide order on 25.10.2010, was time bared i.e. beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years, since as per Section 468 (2) (c) CrPC, the period of limitation prescribed for offences punishable upto 3 years is, 3 years.
4. On perusing of the complaint of the respondent no. 2, the said fact is borne out from the record. In para no. 9 of the complaint, the respondent no. 2 has admitted that since March 2004, she is living with her parents. Further, in para no. 27 of the complaint, the respondent no. 2 has admitted that the acts of harassment and cruelty were perpetrated upon her by all the accused persons, at her matrimonial home, at Dwarka, Delhi.
5. It is admitted case of the respondent no. 2 that she stayed with the revisionist upto March 2004 in her matrimonial home, at Dwarka and the alleged acts of harassment and cruelty are pertaining to her stay at her aforesaid matrimonial home, during the said period, whereas she had made the first complaint for the aforesaid offences Page No. 4 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
only on 27.3.2009, upon which the FIR was registered. The cognizance for the offence was taken vide order dated 25.10.2010, which was beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years of the offences u/s 406/498A, as prescribed u/s 468 (2) (c) CrPC.
6. Thus, the cognizance of offences u/s 498A/406 IPC, vide dated 25.10.2010, relating to incidents pertaining to the 11 month period upto March 2004, was clearly beyond prescribed period of limitation. Admittedly, neither any application for condonation of delay was moved before the ld. Trial Court nor any such delay was formally condoned by the ld. Trial Court, hence, I am of the considered opinion that the cognizance for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC, vide order dated 25.10.2010, was time barred. The ld. Trial Court had discharged the accused no. 2 S.K. Modi (father in law of the respondent no. 2) and accused no. 3 Basanti Modi (mother in law of the respondent no. 2), vide impugned order, on the ground that the allegations for harassment and cruelty against them are general and vague.
7. Let us assume for arguments sake that the cognizance was not time barred. The ld. Trial Court has discharged the accused no. 2 S.K. Modi (father in law of the respondent no. 2) and accused no. 3 Basanti Modi Page No. 5 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
(mother in law of the respondent no. 2), on the ground that the allegations for harassment and cruelty against them, are general and vague, in nature. Still, it appears that on similar allegations, the ld. Trial Court had framed the charge u/s 498A/406 IPC against this revisionist (husband), without passing any speaking order as to how the said charge against the revisionist is made out. There is not even a specific allegation of cruelty against the revisionist for the period upto March 2004, when the respondent no. 2 stayed with him at her matrimonial home.
8. The remaining allegation leveled are general and vague without any specific instances and also relating to the various litigations initiated by the revisionist against his wife (respondent no. 2 herein). Neither the specific dates nor the mode and manner of alleged harassment and cruelty or as to what role was actually played by the revisionist or whether the respondent no. 2 made any complaint before any authority, including police, relating to alleged harassment and cruelty, prior to filing of complaint dated 27.3.2009, is there. Also no supporting material to corroborate the said allegations are there. Further, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent no. 2 had made any complaint before Crime Against Women Cell, for redressal of her Page No. 6 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
grievances. Also, no list of istridhan article given on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to the revisionist or his family, duly acknowledged by the revisionist at the time of marriage, has been filed on record.
9. Also, from the order dated 21.8.2009 of Sh. I.S. Mehta, ld.
District JudgeIXcumASJ Incharge, South West District Courts, District Courts, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, on the anticipatory bail application of this revisionist, it appears that a sum of Rs. 2.55 lakh was paid to the respondent no. 2 upto that date, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
10. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Amar Pal Singh Chadha @ Sonu Vs. State & Another", 145 (2007) DLT 301, in para nos. 14 to 16, has held as under: "14. On the merits of the matter, suffice would it be to state that the inordinate delay (nearly 6 years) in filing the complaint after the complainant had withdrawn from her matrimonial house gives rise to a presumption in favour of the petitioner that no Istridhan of the complainant was retained by him or any of his family members.
15. I must additionally note that the FIR is the usual FIR which I notice in each and every Page No. 7 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
case. All members of the family of the inlaws, uncles, aunts, married sisterinlaws, their husbands, married brothers of the petitioner, their wives, parents of the petitioner, even the brothers and sisters of the fatherinlaw and the motherinlaw of the complainant have been roped in. The number of accused disclosed in the complaint are 15.
16. Prima facie, complainant is trying to harass virtually every member of the family of her inlaws."
11. Also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Neeraj Gupta & Others Vs. CBI", 2007 (3) RCR Criminal 872, in para no. 11, has held as under: "11. The task of the court, at the charge framing stage is to assess the overall weight of the evidence presented before it and reasonably infer whether grave suspicion exists that the accused, prima facie committed the offence alleged. The exercise of sifting the evidence involves, to a certain extent, value determination about the tentative worth of such evidence. Yet this exercise cannot be confused to a standard discharged at the time of trial i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubts. The court has to make a reasonable assessment; if upon application of such a bench mark, no prima facie case is made out, accused would be entitled to be discharged. It is also settled law that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be preferred." Page No. 8 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
12. The FIR does not discloses specific allegations against the revisionist and prima facie the dispute appears to be arising out of matrimonial bickering between them and is a result of wear and tear of life and it would be abuse of legal and judicial process to mechanically burden the revisionist with the trial. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of UP & Another", 2013 (1) CC Cases (SC) 46.
13. It is well settled that for framing of charge existence of grave suspicion against an accused for committing the offence, has to be there. It is not that on every slightest suspicion, the charge has to be framed. Further, in this case, there is inordinate delay of 5 years by the respondent no. 2, in making of complaint regarding the alleged acts of harassment, cruelty and criminal breach of trust of her istridhan articles. However, her bald allegations are not prima facie supported with any other material and rather said allegations have been leveled after inordinate delay. Also, she has not specifically stated the date or month, when she asked for return of her istridhan articles. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no grave suspicion exists against the revisionist that he has committed the offence u/s 498A/406 IPC. Consequently, the impugned order of the Page No. 9 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 179/12. Sanjay Modi Vs. State & Another.
ld. Trial Court of framing of charge u/s 498A/406 IPC, suffers from infirmity and illegality. Resultantly, the same is set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.
14. The revisionist (accused no. 1 before the ld. Trial Court) stands discharged for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC. His bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged.
15. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent to the ld. Trial Court, for information and consignment.
16. Revision petition file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 3.12.2013.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 10 of 10. Contd... ... ...