Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Pursuant to this complaint dated 08.04.2011 and 30.06.2011 against the accused, FIR was registered on 30.12.2011 and the matter was investigated. Charge sheet was filed on 01.10.2013. The Court took cognizance of offence and summoned the accused persons u/s 498A/406/34 IPC. Charge was framed against accused persons u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC and remaining accused persons were discharged. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and accordingly, prosecution evidence was lead and during proceedings accused Jitender Kumar Gupta stopped appearing before the Court and was declared proclaimed offender on 08.09.2017. However, subsequently the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta was arrested and produced before the court on 22.04.2019 and additional charge u/s 174A IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During cross­examination on behalf of accused persons, PW1 deposed that during the entire investigation, she did not hand over any bank statement/ITR of her family member regarding the alleged expense in her marriage. There was another house located at the left hand side of her matrimonial house. She again stated that 'on the left side, there was plot in which some persons were residing by making a jhuggi'. There was a shop located at the opposite side of her matrimonial house. It was correct that there were other people residing around her matrimonial house. No neighbour came at the spot that was her matrimonial house to rescue her after listening hue and cry. She voluntarily stated that since her in­laws had no good relations with their neighbour, therefore, no one came to rescue her. It was correct that she did not mention this fact in her complaint Ex.PW­1/D in her statement recorded before police and in her examination in chief (she was confronted with Ex.PW­1/D). Nobody ever came to rescue her from the neighbourhood. She voluntarily stated that Ashok Mittal used to come to take side of her in­ laws. It was correct that she had not mentioned the name of Ashok Mittal anywhere in her complaint, statement to the police or to any other authority. During investigation she had not handed over to the IO any document pertaining to the ITR return/ bank account statement of her parents or family FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 10 of 50 members. She admitted that the bills of purchase were annexed with the judicial file were only photocopies. She had handed over the bills of purchase of stridhan articles to the IO during investigation. She admitted that her marriage with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta was her second marriage. She admitted that her matrimonial home was situated in a well settled colony and there were several houses adjacent to her matrimonial home. No person from the neighbourhood ever intervened when there were quarrels with her by the family of accused. She denied the suggestion that no person from the neighbourhood interfered since no such incident ever occurred. She informed her family first time after 15 days of her marriage that the accused persons had demanded dowry from her. Her mother at that time had not filed any complaint with any police authority upon hearing the same from her. She admitted that her jethani Saroj, who was also living in the matrimonial home, was never demanded with any dowry by the accused persons in her presence. At the time of her marriage, her mother was a housewife. She admitted that her father had expired before her marriage. She admitted that she was unemployed at the time of her marriage. She denied the suggestion that the expenses stated to have been incurred in her marriage were exorbitant. When she got married, accused Narender Bansal was having travel business. It was correct that the family of accused was financially sound. It was correct that she had filed a civil suit against her parents in law regarding property at Karkardooma Court. It was correct that she had filed a case u/s 12 DV Act and u/s 498A/406 IPC against her previous husband and his family members. It was correct that she got divorced from her previous husband in February, FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 11 of 50 2010 by mutual consent. It was further correct that she got engaged to accused Jitender Kumar Gupta in the month of February, 2009. She did not know where her complaint Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D were typed. She had given her list of dowry articles to the IO at PS Jungpura and had written the same there on 09.11.2011 and the same was Ex.PW1/F. She did not know if any list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage. In her marriage about 60­70 guests had attended the marriage from her side. She had not told the name of relatives in whose presence the dowry articles were given in her marriage to accused persons since IO never asked her for the same. It was correct that a case u/s 325 IPC was also filed by her against the accused persons and the FIR of the same was still pending at Karkardooma Court. The incident of aforesaid FIR had occurred on 07.04.2011. She could not tell the exact date when for the first time she had filed a complaint against the accused persons. During her stay at her matrimonial home she started using mobile phone in the year 2010 which was given to her by her sister. She had given a call at 100 number and complaint regarding the fact that accused persons used to give her beatings. She could not tell the exact date or month of making the aforesaid call to police. On 07.06.2012 when her father in law had hit her with a stick at Karkardooma Court, she had got herself medically examined and the documents pertaining to the same were placed on record. However, she did not file any FIR against the accused. While she visited the treating doctor after the aforesaid assault on her by her father in law, she had told the doctor regarding the incident. She did not know if any MLC was prepared by doctor. It was correct that accused FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 12 of 50 persons had their own car before her marriage and they were two in number. It was correct that on one complaint of the accused persons she had been arrested and sent to lockup. It was correct that matter which was pending at Karkardooma court filed by her against her father in law, he had been acquitted.

FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 32 of 50

7. Accused persons did not examine any other witness in their defence except accused Narender Bansal u/s 315 CrPC.

DW1 Narender Bansal (accused) deposed that the engagement ceremony of the complainant was solemnised with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Vihar on 15.02.2009. At the time of engagement ceremony, complainant and her family members concealed the fact from them that complainant was not legally divorced and at later stage, they came to know that complainant got her mutual consent divorce in the month of March, 2010. Complainant got married on 04.07.2010 with accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. Just before 2­3 days of the marriage, they came to know that complainant was not divorced at the time of engagement and she got divorce in the month of March, 2010. As his brother and family members had no objection of being the complainant divorced, they agreed to proceed for marriage on 04.07.2010 which was solemnised at Jain Mandir, Bhogal, Delhi. In the said marriage, there were only 8­10 persons attended the marriage from their side. In the month of August, 2010 complainant started raising demand for the share in the property of his father. Consequent to which, his father filed a civil suit against complainant and her husband Jitender Kumar Gupta before KKD Court for the peaceful possession of the property bearing No.C­269/E, Gali No.10, Bhajanpura on 04.05.2011. At the counterblast of the said case, complainant filed a case of domestic violence against him and his family members on 22.07.2011. Vide judgment dated 11.10.2014, Ld. ACJ, KKD Court has passed a judgment in favour of his father, certified copy of the judgment was Ex.DW­1/A while decree of the FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 33 of 50 said case was Ex.DW­1/B. After that, complainant in collusion with her husband Jitender Kumar Gupta prepared forged and fabricated document regarding the said property and complainant also submitted the same in Domestic Violence case, copy of which was mark as Z­1. Hon'ble Court already dismissed the domestic violence case filed by the complainant vide judgment dated 14.01.2019, certified copy of the said judgment was Ex.DW­ 1/C. Sister in law of the complainant already arrayed complainant and her family member as accused in 498A/406 IPC case and domestic violence case which was pending before Ld. MM, Rohini court. Even in her previous marriage, complainant arrayed her previous husband namely Amit Sahni and his family members in similar cases i.e. 498A/406 IPC at PS H.N. Din and domestic violence case and later on, she settled the same after getting financial benefits.

During cross­examination on behalf of Ld. APP for the State, DW1 deposed that it was correct that the marriage of the complainant with the accused Jitender Kumar Gupta had been solemnized on 04.07.2010 and the engagement was solemnized on 15.02.2009. He did not know about the first divorce of the complainant being pending at the time of engagement of the complainant with his brother namely accused Jitender Kumar Gupta. He came to know regarding the fact that complainant was not legally divorced from her previous husband during the year 2010. He did not remember the exact month when he came to know regarding the same. Complainant was divorced from her previous husband in March 2010. He was informed regarding the aforesaid fact of the complainant not being divorced from her previous FIR No. 377/2011; PS H.N. Din; State Vs. Jitender Kumar Gupta & Ors. 34 of 50 husband by his brother Jitender Kumar Gupta. It was correct that his brother was aware about the aforesaid fact and he had no objection in this respect. He did not know if complainant Ritu Gupta had filed a Civil Suit for seeking permanent injunction at Karkardooma Court against his father. He was not aware that after the aforesaid suit being filed by the complainant, his father had filed a suit against the complainant as a counter blast for seeking permanent injunction/eviction against the complainant. Thereafter, witness was shown document Mark Z1 which bears the signature of his brother Jitender Kumar Gupta at point A on both the pages upon which, he deposed that he did not know the signatures of any other person on the aforesaid document. He did not know if the complainant does not have any knowledge regarding document Mark Z1. The father of the bhabhi of the complainant told him regarding the fact that their daughter had filed a case u/s 498A/406 IPC against the complainant and her family members when he visited his house in the year 2015. Witness denied all the suggestions put to him.