Delhi District Court
Meera Devi vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-010769-2018
Crl. Rev. No. 378/2018
Meera Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ram Dheeraj Mishra
R/o- A-126, Deenpur Extn.
Najafgarh, New Delhi
............. Revisionist
Vs.
1. State (NCT of Delhi)
Through
Secretary, Home
Govt of NCT Delhi
Old Secretariat New Delhi
2. Smt. Alka Mishra
W/o Sh. Satish Mishra,
R/o- A-116, Gali No. 6,
Dass Garden, Baprola Vihar,
New Delhi.
......... Respondents
Date of Institution of case : 29.11.2018
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Decision : Dismissed
Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. This is the revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC filed by the revisionist for setting aside order dated 28.08.2018 of framing of charge u/s 498A/406/34 IPC and also the order dated 11.09.2017 vide which Ld Trial Court gave reasons for framing of aforesaid charge against the revisionist and other accused persons.
2. I have already heard arguments on the present revision petition and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the present petition are that the case FIR No. 396/13, PS Ranhola was registered upon the complaint given by the complainant Alka Mishra who is the daughter-in-law of the revisionist wherein she alleged that her in-laws including the revisionist have been subjecting her to cruelty for fulfilling their demands of dowry and she also alleged that her in-laws including the revisionist also committed criminal breach of trust qua the Istri-dhan articles of the complainant. After registration of FIR, the investigation was conducted and during the investigation, the statements of relevant witnesses were recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.PC and the accused persons including the revisionist were chargesheeted for the offence u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC. Vide impugned order dated 11.09.2017, Ld Trial Court gave reasons and observed that prima-facie offence punishable u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC is made out against the revisionist and listed the matter for formal framing of charge on the subsequent date and then the formal charge was framed against the revisionist and other accused persons on 28.08.2018. Both the aforesaid orders Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 2 of 12 have been impugned vide instant revision petition.
4. It is alleged in the revision petition that Ld Trial Court ordered the framing of charges without disposing of the application u/s 239 Cr.PC filed by one of the co-accused before Ld Trial Court. It is further alleged that the husband of the revisionist was an old aged retired person who had died and throughout his life, deceased husband of the revisionist did everything to bring smile on the face of his children and in the hour of need when he was bedridden, the complainant/respondent no. 2 not only harassed, humiliated, slapped, manhandle but also kicked him off and she levelled false and frivolous allegations against the bedridden husband of the revisionist and against the revisionist herein. It is alleged that the marriage of respondent no. 2 and the elder son of the revisionist was solemnized on 10.12.2006 in a very simple manner and without any pomp and show and no dowry was demanded by any of the family member and the family was very happy with the respondent no. 2 as a new family member and she also participated in every function of the family, however, as the time passed her behaviour started changing and her parents and other family members started interfering in day to day activities of the family and the parental family of the respondent no. 2 wanted to throw out the revisionist and her husband from the self acquired property of the revisionist and gradually the respondent no. 2 mounted pressure on the family members of the revisionist and she started humiliating and harassing the revisionist and other family members and in Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 3 of 12 the year 2013 when the situation became unbearable, the revisionist filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent no. 2 and her husband vide CS No. 211/2013 before Ld Sr. Civil Judge, Dwarka District Court and Ld ACJ-cum-ARC, Dwarka District Court decreed the suit on 04.04.2016 in favour of the revisionist and restrained the respondent no. 2 and her husband from interfering from day to day life of the revisionist and also directed the respondent no. 2 and her husband to vacate the suit property but till date the husband of the complainant has not vacated the property.
5. It is alleged that the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint in CAW Cell, Dwarka and thereafter another complaint before CAW Cell, Nanakpura and concerned CAW Cell issued notice to the revisionist and she appeared before CAW Cell but the matter could not be settled and the FIR was registered. It is alleged that the IO of the aforesaid case FIR No. 396/13, PS Ranhola did not ask for any document from the revisionist and she could not refute the allegations levelled by the respondent no. 2. It is alleged that the revisionist has filed certain photographs alongwith revision petition wherein the respondent no. 2 could be seen participating in functions and ceremonies on various occasions and it is alleged that in the photograph no. 1 to 8 pertaining to the year 2008, the respondent no. 2 can be seen wearing her ornaments and jewellery articles (Istri- dhan) which refutes the alleged dishonest misappropriation or entrustment of Istri-dhan articles and hence, the charge framed u/s 498A, 406 IPC against the Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 4 of 12 revisionist is bad in law and the revisionist is liable to be discharged.
6. It is further alleged that in photograph no. 9 and 10 which pertains to the month of July 2009 wherein the respondent no. 2 is sitting alongwith revisionist which prima-facie establish the love and affection on the part of the revisionist and hence, charge framed against the revisionist u/s 498A IPC is bad in law. It is further alleged that photograph no. 11 and 12 pertain to the year 2012 which again disclose that respondent no. 2 was appearing in Karwachauth Ceremony in the year 2012 alongwith other family members and hence, no prima facie case u/s 498A, 406 IPC is made out against the revisionist and that the revisionist is liable to be discharged from the present case.
7. It is further alleged that the revisionist always considered the respondent no. 2 as her daughter and therefore, got her admitted in professional course at YMCA so that she could learn more and without giving an opportunity to the revisionist, the chargesheet was filed by the IO on 24.02.2015 and the revisionist alongwith other accused persons were summoned by the Court.
8. It is further alleged that on 08.08.2017, the revisionist Meera Devi furnished her bail bond and arguments on the point of charge were incomplete as Ld counsel for the revisionist wanted to file an application u/s 239 Cr.PC but on 11.09.2017, Ld MM passed the impugned order without hearing the revisionist about which the revisionist was not aware. It is further that Ld counsel for the Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 5 of 12 revisionist was not available on 11.09.2017 and that the revisionist changed her counsel. It is further alleged that the matter was fixed for arguments on the application u/s 239 Cr.PC filed on behalf of co-accused Anil Mishra, however, on 28.08.2018 Ld MM framed the charge u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC without deciding the application u/s 239 Cr.PC filed by co-accused Anil Mishra and without verifying the death of another co-accused.
9. It is alleged that on 28.08.2018 revisionist applied for certified copy of the impugned order and came to know that order on charge has been passed on 11.09.2017 and thereafter the revisionist instructed her counsel to file a revision petition against the order dated 11.09.2017 and 28.08.2018.
10.It is alleged that the impugned orders are bad in law because the charges have been framed without deciding the application u/s 239 Cr.PC filed by co-accused Anil Mishra and without verification of death of Ram Dheeraj Mishra and that the charge u/s 406 IPC against the revisionist is baseless and Ld MM failed to appreciate that the allegations levelled against the revisionist are self contradictory and that the police report and documents filed alongwith chargesheet do not support the allegations of respondent no. 2. It is further alleged that revisionist had already obtained the decree in her favour from the competent court wherein Ld ACJ, Dwarka District Court has directed respondent no. 2 and her husband to vacate the suit property and that the photographs filed by the revisionist prima-facie establish that the respondent no. 2 Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 6 of 12 is in possession of her jewellery and she has been happily appearing in various ceremonies alongwith family members including the revisionist and in these circumstances, the revisionist is liable to be discharged in case FIR No. 396/13, PS Ranhola pending before Ld Trial Court.
11. I have heard Ld counsel for the revisionist as well as Ld Addl. PP for the respondent no.1/State. Ld counsel for respondent no. 2 did not appear for arguments despite opportunity.
12.Vide instant revision petition, the revisionist/accused Meera Devi has challenged the order dated 11.09.2017 vide which Ld Trial Court gave reasons for framing of charge and the order dated 28.08.2018 vide which formal charge in view of order dated 11.09.2017 was framed against the revisionist and other accused persons.
13.The impugned orders have been challenged by the revisionist on the ground that the respondent no. 2 who is the complainant before Ld Trial Court has levelled false and frivolous allegations against the revisionist and that respondent no.2 has been happily residing in her matrimonial home and she had been taking part in various family functions alongwith revisionist as visible in the photographs filed by the revisionist alongwith revision petition. It is further alleged by the revisionist that Ld Trial Court ordered the framing of charge without deciding the application u/s 239 Cr.PC filed on behalf of co-accused Anil Mishra and without verification of death of co-accused Ram Dheeraj Mishra.
Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 7 of 12
14.Perusal of the Trial Court Record reveals that the accused/revisionist Meera Devi was present before Ld Trial Court alongwith her counsel Sh. R.S. Kaliraman on 08.08.2017 as reflected in the ordersheet of the aforesaid date in Trial Court and Ld Trial Court heard the arguments on the point of charge and the matter was listed for orders on 11.09.2017.
15. Vide order dated 11.09.2017 Ld Trial Court while dealing with the rival contentions made by Ld counsel for the accused persons and Ld APP for the State gave reasons and ordered that prima-facie offence punishable u/s 498A, 34 IPC is made out against accused Ram Dheeraj, Raju and Anil and that offence punishable u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC is made out against accused Satish and revisionist Meera Devi and all the accused persons were directed to appear in person on the next date for formal framing of charge.
16. On 28.08.2018 a submission was made before Ld Trial Court that accused Ram Dheeraj Mishra had died and copy of his death certificate was also filed on record and Ld Trial Court proceeded to frame formal charge against the remaining accused persons present including the revisionist in view of order dated 11.09.2017.
17. Revisionist has alleged that since the death verification report qua co-accused Ram Dheeraj Mishra was not before Ld Trial Court, Ld Trial Court was not justified in formal framing of charge against the revisionist in view of order dated 11.09.2017. So far as the aforesaid ground taken by the revisionist to seek her discharge is concerned, Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 8 of 12 I am of the opinion that the revisionist cannot seek discharge on the ground that the death verification report qua another co-accused was not before Ld Trial Court as Ld Trial Court has already given reasoning vide order dated 11.09.2017 to frame the charge against the accused persons including the revisionist. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the copy of death certificate of co-accused Ram Dheeraj Mishra was placed on record before Ld Trial Court on 28.08.2018 and Ld Trial Court was justified in formal framing of charge qua remaining accused persons on that day so as to avoid unnecessary delay in trial.
18. Another ground taken by the revisionist seeking discharge before Ld Trial Court is that Ld Trial Court ordered the framing of charge without deciding the application u/s 239 Cr.PC filed by another co-accused Anil Mishra. So far as aforesaid ground taken by the revisionist to seek discharge is concerned, perusal of the Trial Court Record reveals that the arguments on charge were heard by Ld Trial Court on 08.08.2017 in the presence of revisionist Meera Devi, co-accused Anil Mishra and other accused persons alongwith Ld counsel and the matter was listed for orders on 11.09.2017 and no such application u/s 239 Cr.PC was filed by the revisionist or by co-accused Anil Mishra either on 08.08.2017 or on 11.09.2017.
19. Perusal of Trial Court Record reveals that the application u/s 239 Cr.PC was filed before Ld Trial Court on behalf of co-accused Anil Mishra on 06.03.2018 which was disposed of by Ld Trial Court on 28.03.2019 while observing that the order on point of charge dealing with Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 9 of 12 the contentions made in the application has already been passed vide order dated 11.09.2017 and the charge is also framed on 28.08.2018 and Ld Trial Court accordingly dismissed the said application being infructuous.
20. Ld Trial Court has observed vide order dated 28.03.2019 that the contentions made in the application u/s 239 Cr.PC on behalf of accused Anil Mishra have already been dealt with vide order dated 11.09.2017. It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 11.09.2017 vide which Ld Trial Court gave reasons for framing the charge against the revisionist is a reasoned order and Ld Trial Court has observed that there is sufficient material available on record to frame the charges u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC against the revisionist. The filing of the application u/s 239 Cr.PC by one of the co-accused before Ld Trial Court after the passing of order on charge dated 11.09.2017 cannot be a ground for the revisionist to seek discharge in the case FIR No. 396/13, PS Ranhola.
21. The revisionist has sought discharge from the abovesaid case FIR on another ground that the respondent no.2 can be seen living happily in her matrimonial home alongwith revisionist and other family members in the photographs which are filed alongwith revision petition. However, the aforesaid photographs are not part of Trial Court Record and the same have been filed alongwith revision petition and the revisionist would have ample opportunity before Ld Trial Court to lead defence evidence at appropriate stage in order to prove her defence. Further, the revisionist is the mother-in-law of respondent no. 2 and they were Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 10 of 12 living in the same home after the marriage of the son of the revisionist with respondent no. 2 and photographs are likely to be clicked on different occasions after the marriage. Hence, the revisionist cannot be discharged from the case before Ld Trial Court on the basis of the photographs filed alongwith revision petition.
22. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders passed by Ld Trial Court cannot be set aside on the grounds as mentioned in the instant revision petition. Further, Ld Trial Court has given reasons in the impugned order for framing the appropriate charges against the accused persons including the revisionist and Ld Trial Court has observed in the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 that the complainant/respondent no. 2 has mentioned the incidents of year 2007 during the occasions of Rakshabandhan and that of the month of June 2013 when she was brutly beaten up by the accused persons and that the allegations of the complainant (respondent no. 2) against the accused persons (including the revisionist) are sufficient to constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498A IPC. Ld Trial Court has further observed that so far as the offence punishable u/s 406 IPC is concerned, there has to be a specific entrustment and dishonest misappropriation of property and in the present case complainant (respondent no. 2) has made specific averments only against accused Satish and Meera Devi (revisionist herein) to the effect that they had taken jewellery and other articles of the complainant and they had misappropriated Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 11 of 12 the same. Ld Trial Court rightly observed that in view of the aforesaid fact, prima-facie offence u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC is made out against the accused/revisionist Meera Devi and I find no error or illegality in the impugned orders dated 11.09.2017 and 28.08.2018.
23. In view of the abovesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Ld Trial Court has rightly framed the charges u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC against the revisionist Meera Devi. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 11.09.2017 and 28.08.2018 passed by Ld MM (Mahila Court)/West/THC qua the revisionist are hereby upheld.
24.The revision petition filed by the revisionist Meera Devi is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.
25. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary formalities.
26. Trial Court Record be sent back.
27.Copy of order be sent to Ld Trial Court.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15th of DECEMBER 2022.
(Manish Khurana) Additional Sessions Judge-04 West/Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/15.12.2022 Crl. Rev. No. 378/18 Meera Devi Vs. State & Anr Page no. 12 of 12