Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he thought it fit that additional charges be framed for the offences under Section 498-A/313/342 IPC against all the accused (except Vivek Gupta) in addition to the charge framed under Section 417 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his father and under Section 406 against Mohit Gupta and his mother. Being aggrieved by the additional charges framed against them, the accused have filed this revision petition. The order dated 8.2.2005, in turn, arose out of a revision petition filed by the complainant (Shalini) who was aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 26.3.2004 by virtue of which, charges only under Section 417 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his father and under Section 406 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his mother, were framed. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not frame any charge under Section 498-A IPC. Nor did he frame any charge under Section 313 and 342 IPC against any of the accused.

2. The prosecution had filed the challan under Sections 498-A/406/506/342/417/34 IPC against six accused persons which included Mohit Gupta, his father (Deshpal Gupta), mother (Sita Gupta), brother (Vineet Gupta), brother's wife (Sangeeta Gupta) and another relative Vivek Gupta. After examining the entire case presented by the prosecution the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was of the view that the the provisions of Section 498-A IPC were not attracted in this case as the marriage between Mohit Gupta and Shalini (the complainant) was null and void. He was also of the view that there was no material/evidence on record to frame a charge under Section 313 IPC against the accused persons. He also observed that though the ingredients of the provisions under Section 495 IPC were attracted, the court could not take cognizance of the offence except on a complaint by the complainant or her relatives in view of Section 198 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. Therefore, he refrained from framing any charges under Section 495 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, however, framed the charges under Section 406 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his mother. It is further pointed out in the order dated 26.3.2004 that the offence under Section 415 IPC which was punishable under Section 417 IPC could also be framed against Mohit Gupta and his father (Deshpal Gupta). The learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the other accused.

4. The first issue that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the marriage between Shalini and Mohit Gupta was a nullity he could not be considered to be a 'husband' within the meaning of the expression as used in Section 498-A IPC. Similarly, it was contended that the other accused could not also be regarded as the 'relatives of the husband'. The second point that was raised was that there was no material on record to enable the learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame a charge under Section 313 IPC. The third point that was taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the offence under Section 406 IPC was also not made out in as much as there had been a settlement which had been arrived at on 9.10.2003. He placed reliance on a copy of the DD No. 16A to show that Shalini's father and Mohit Gupta's father had entered into a compromise in the presence of relatives. Shalini's father had also admitted in the compromise that he had no dispute with the accused nor was anything due from the accused persons. He also referred to the letter dated 9.10.2003 addressed to the S.H.O. of police station Punjabi Bagh written by the complainant's father wherein he informed that he had entered into a compromise with the in-laws of his daughter and that after that day they had no concern with them and had settled their claims. On the strength of this compromise, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that no material remained with the petitioners and therefore there were no claims pending against them. That being the case, a charge under Section 406 IPC could not have been framed. Thus, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the charge under Section 498-A as well as the charge under Section 313 IPC and the charge under Section 406 IPC are liable to be cancelled as they are not attracted in the present case.

10. I now come to the third and final issue that arises in this revision petition and that is with regard to the charge under Section 406 IPC. Although the learned Counsel for the petitioners raised this issue before this Court, I find that when the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed his order of framing charges, none of the accused preferred a revision against the charges framed by him. The charges framed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate included the charge under Section 406 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his mother Sita Gupta. That being the case, it is, in my view, not open to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to raise this issue now. In any event, I feel that the charges have been rightly framed under Section 406 IPC by both the courts below. The settlement that is said to have been arrived at between the parties does not come in the way of framing of charges. As rightly pointed out by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the original compromise was not placed on record and in any event the complainant has disputed the said compromise. Furthermore, there are specific averments in the complaint made by the complainant that her jewellery was in possession of Sita Gupta and all the cash was in the possession of Mohit Gupta and Sita Gupta. Therefore, agreeing with the courts below I think that a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC was made out and the charge has been rightly framed against Mohit Gupta and his mother Sita Gupta.