Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This common order shall dispose of above noted two petitions as the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts have been extracted from CRM-M-26369-2016.

2. These two petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 15.07.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which the revision petition of the State has been accepted and the order of discharge dated 14.06.2013, passed by the 1 of 10 CRM-M-26369-2016 & Court of JMIC, Sonepat, has been set aside.

3. In brief, the facts are that one Manjeet Dagar son of Sh. Ombir Singh, resident of Malikpur, Chaura Road, near Jaffarpur, Delhi married with Nidhi, d/o Ishwar Singh Dahiya, resident of Sonepat, on 14.03.2009. After the solemnization of the marriage, problems arose between Nidhi and her husband which resulted in her lodging a case against her husband Manjeet Dagar, father-in-law Ombir, mother-in-law Sheela, elder brother of her husband Bhalender, Shakuntala-mother-in-law of Bhalender and some other persons as FIR No. 310 dated 12.08.2009 under Sections 312, 315 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the MPT Act at Police Station Bahadurgarh. Thereafter, another FIR was lodged bearing No. 36 dated 04.11.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the IPC against Manjeet-husband, Bhalender (Jeth), Dipika (Bhalender's wife), Ombeer Singh (father of Manjeet and Bhalender), Sheela Devi (mother of Manjeet) and Parveen Kumar (husband of the sister-in-law).

4. In the FIR, it was submitted that all the accused were guilty of demanding dowry with allegation that Dipika (Jethani), accused No. 3, snatched away all the ornaments and clothing of the complainant and that the complainant was not allowed to use these clothes. It was further alleged that Parveen (petitioner in CRM-M-26369-2016) put the demand of the price of a car to be deposited in his account which amount was deposited in his account. It is alleged that the car would have to be purchased in the name of accused No. 1 as dowry article but instead of that, he purchased the car in his name and in this fashion he induced the father of the complainant to give him Rs. 4,10,000/-. In FIR No. 36 dated 04.11.2009, under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 of the IPC, the petitioners filed an application for their 2 of 10 CRM-M-26369-2016 & discharge on the ground that they were innocent and have no concern in any manner as they were living separately. It was contended that the petitioner Parveen was serving in BSF and had purchased the car from the BSF quota on the request of the father of the complainant so that they would be able to avail of a concession and the car would be cheaper as against the market price. The application for discharge of the petitioners was allowed by the learned JMIC, Sonepat by holding that there was gross misuse of the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC as there was a tendency to implicate all family members of the husband, while also noting the argument that an amount has been deposited in the account of Parveen in order to avail of concession of the BSF quota. It was further noted that the car had been bought and the same was found by the Investigating Officer parked in the matrimonial home of the complainant but she had refused to take it back. It was also noted that applicant-Parveen had given a payment of Rs. 4,10,000/-, under protest, in the Court of Sh. K. C. Sharma, the then ASJ, Sonepat, during the hearing of the anticipatory bail. It was also noted as under:

5. Against the order of discharge, a revision petition was filed which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 3 of 10 CRM-M-26369-2016 & 15.07.2016 holding that the case was at the stage of framing of charge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the challan had been submitted by the police against all accused after investigation and the defence version, put up by the respondents at the time of framing of charges, could not be taken into consideration. It was further held that documents regarding residence of Bhalender and Dipika were not even proved or laid in the defence to establish the factum that they were not joint in mess. The version of Parveen, the petitioner herein, was not taken into account. Aggrieved against setting aside the order of discharge, the instant petitions have been filed.