Delhi District Court
Smt. Rajni Saraswat W/O Sh. Ravi Kumar ... vs The State Of Delhi Through Ld. Pp on 20 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J., DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CR No. 485/12.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0225602012.
Smt. Rajni Saraswat w/o Sh. Ravi Kumar Mandal
d/o Sh. V.P. Sharma,
r/o 71, Sadbhawna Apartment,
Patpar Ganj, Delhi. ..........Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Delhi through ld. PP
2. Ravi Kumar Mandal s/o Awadh Kishore Mandal
permanent r/o Near DVC Colony, Vishnupur,
PO Jhumri Tallya, Distt. Kodarma, Jharkhand.
Present add:- C-307, Hindon Apartments,
Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110 096.
Also at:-HCL Technologies, Digital Photography &
White Goods, EMP Code:4041018, A-5,
Sector-24, Noida, UP.
3. Awadh Kishore Mandal s/o late Bande Mandal
4. Mandakini Mandal d/o Sh. Awadh Kishore Mandal
5. Uday Kumar Mandal s/o Sh. Awadh Kishore Mandal
all permanent r/o Near DVC Colony, Vishnupur,
PO Jhumri Tallya, Distt. Kodarma, Jharkhand.
6. Mamta Sinha w/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha
7. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha s/o Awdhesh Kumar Sinha
Both r/o 9, Bijay Bhawan, City Banka,
Ancahl Banka, Distt. Banka, Bihar. ........Respondents
Date of Institution of Revision Petition: 05.10.2012.
FIR No. 100/09 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC
u/s 397 Cr.P.C.
PS CAW Cell Nanakpura
CR No. 485/12. Page 1 of 6
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 20.10.2012.
Date of pronouncement : 20.10.2012.
Present:- Petitioner in person alongwith Counsel Sh.
Hamid Ali.
Sh. Aditya Kumar, ld. APP for State.
Trial court record has been received.
Arguments heard on the revision petition.
ORDER
1. The revision petition has been directed against the order dated 06.07.2012 of ld. MM, Mahila Court, Dwraka Courts, New Delhi whereby the ld. Magistrate has declined to take cognizance of the offence in question against the respondent No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the cognizance has been taken only vis-a-vis respondent NO.2.
2. The proceedings in this case, have started when the complainant filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanak Pura, New Delhi alleging harassment, cruelty and dowry demands by her in-laws. The conciliation proceedings conducted in the CAW Cell did not yield any result. The FIR was registered and the investigation started by ASI Mohd. Harun. After completion of investigations, charge sheet was laid before the ld. Magistrate wherein only respondent No.2 was shown in column No.
11. The other respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were kept in column NO. 12 on the ground that no evidence regarding their involvement in the offence in question, could be gathered.
3. It also appeared from the impugned order that the ld.
CR No. 485/12. Page 2 of 6Magistrate had summoned the IO SI Mohd. Harun at the time of hearing, who stated to her that respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 have been residing outside Delhi and there was no evidence that they had visited Delhi at any point of time. Upon hearing the IO and upon consideration of the material on record, the ld. Magistrate passed the aforesaid impugned order.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ld. Magistrate has erred in believing the statement of the IO and basing her order on such statement. He submits that there are specific allegations in the complaint of the petitioner against the respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 also which could not have been ignored at the stage of taking cognizance and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and cannot be sustained. He took me through the contents of the complaint, of the petitioner in order to buttress his submissions.
5. The petitioner is the complainant in this case. The respondent No.2 Ravi Kumar is her husband, respondent No.3 Awadh Kishore Mandal is her father-in-law, respondent NO.4 Mandakini is her younger sister-in-law, respondent NO.5 is her brother-in-law (jeth), respondent No.6 is her elder sister-in-law and respondent No.7 is the husband of respondent NO.6.
6. At the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind to the material brought before him by the prosecution, in order to decide whether commission of any offence is disclosed and if so, who are the offenders. The taking of cognizance does not involve any formal CR No. 485/12. Page 3 of 6 action. It occurs as soon as the Magistrate takes judicial notice of the alleged offence and applies his judicial mind to it for seeing whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings. A Magistrate has to gain satisfaction from the material on record whether there is a prima facie case made out for proceeding against the accused and not whether there exist sufficient grounds for the conviction of the accused. At this stage, in view of the scheme of Sections 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court. It may also be noted that where there is a prima facie evidence against an accused to take cognizance, the issuance of process cannot be refused on the ground that the person to be proceeded against might have a defence.
7. Coming to the case on hand, the complaint of the petitioner, discloses specific allegations of cruelty, against the respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. She has specifically alleged that her brother-in-law (jeth), husband of elder sister-in-law i.e. husband of Mamta used to visit Delhi of and on and used to taunt her in relation to dowry. They used to instigate her husband who then used to beat her. She has also alleged that her younger sister-in-law Mandakini has started residing with them at Moti Bagh after she quarreled with her husband. It is also stated that Mandakini used to ask the petitioner to bring money from her parents and her stay with them had made petitioner's life a hell. It is also alleged that the petitioner's father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Jeth) came to Delhi on 3.1.2008. Mandakini had already been staying at Delhi. On 5.1.2008, all of them CR No. 485/12. Page 4 of 6 severely beat the petitioner in relation to dowry and abused her parents. They also demanded money from her. They also demanded money from petitioner on 23.1.2008 which was the marriage anniversary day of Mandakini and on which day petitioner's sister had also come to their residence. The petitioner also stated that her sister-in-law Mamta came to stay with them at Delhi in March,2008 and used to tell the petitioner that if she did not bring heavy amount of money from her parents, she would not be allowed to settle in her married life.
8. It is not in dispute that the respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 were not the residents of Delhi. However, it is evident from the specific allegations made by the petitioner in her complaint that they used to visit Delhi of and on and on such visits they used to harass the petitioner and inflict cruelty upon her in relation to dowry demands. Just because these respondents had been staying outside Delhi does not mean that they did not visit Delhi at any point of time and I fail to understand how the IO of this case has made such a statement in his status report as well as before the trial court on 06.07.2012.
9. I also fail to understand what lead the ld. Magistrate to disbelieve the petitioner's allegations contained in the complaint and to repose utmost belief in the statement of the IO which was not supported by any document at all. The ld. Magistrate appears to have acted beyond her jurisdiction in making a deep inquiry into the allegations of the complainant and in sifting the material on record, painstakingly, which is not permitted at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence.
CR No. 485/12. Page 5 of 610. The impugned order of the ld. Magistrate is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. There exist sufficient grounds for proceeding against respondents NO. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 also. The revision petition stands allowed. The trial court shall now summon the respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 and proceed with the case according to law.
11. Revision petition file be consigned to Record Room. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 20.10.2012. A.S.J. :Dwarka Courts
New Delhi.
CR No. 485/12. Page 6 of 6