IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS NEW DELHI Criminal Revision Number : 47/15 & 8169/16 Smt Lovely Sharma W/o Sh Brijesh Chand Sharma R/o H. No. 135, Sector-6, Plot no. 15, Great India Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi ....................Revisionist Versus State Sneh Sharma W/o Yogesh Sharma D/o Sh Satpal Pathak R/o H. No. 306, Chattarpur, New Delhi .......................Respondent Date of institution of Revision : 14/08/2015 Date of Allocation : 17/08/2015 Date of conclusion of arguments : 05/10/2016 Date of Judgment : 05/10/2016 Particulars related to impugned order: FIR No. : 336/06 U/s : 406/498A of IPC PS : Mehrauli Date of impugned order : 19.05.2015. Name of learned Trial Court : Ms Ankita Lal, Ld MM Mahila Court, South District New Delhi Criminal Revision No.47/15 & 8169 Lovely Sharma Vs State and anr Page 9 of 7 Memo of Appearance Sh Arpit Batra, Ld Counsel for the revisionist. Ld, Ld Addl PP for the State JUDGMENT
1. The present is a judicial verdict on a revision petition filed against the order, dated 19.05.2015, passed by Ld Trial Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
2 Present revision has been filed by the revisionist, namely, Lovely Sharma, against the order, dated 19/05/2015, vide which Ld Trial Court had framed the charges against the revisionist U/s 498A/506/34 of the IPC.
3 Trial court record has been summoned and perused.
4 Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of Complaint of Ms. Sneh Sharma, FIR no. 336/06 U/s 406, 498A and 34 of IPC was registered in PS Mehrauli against her husband and in laws. Investigation was carried out and, after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed by the IO in the Court against accused persons U/s 498A/406/34 of IPC. After hearing the arguments on charge, Ld Trial Court on 31/05/2014, framed the charges against accused Yogesh Sharma, Smt Chanderkanta Sharma, Smt Lovely Sharma, Smt Shashi Sharma, Smt Ruby Parmar, Sh Sukehnder Parmar U/s 498A/34 of PC and also framed charges against Yogesh Sharma U/s 406 of IPCand U/s 323 of IPC.
5 Against the said order, accused Shashi Sharma preferred the revision and in the Criminal Revision No. 39/2014, Ld Appellate Court had discharged accused Shashi Sharma. Thereafter, another revision petition was preferred by the accused Yogesh Sharma, Smt Chandrakanta Sharma, Smt Lovely Sharma, Smt Ruby Parmar, Sh Sukhvinder Parmar. In said revision petition, Ld Appellate Court while setting aside the order, dated 31/05/2014, remanded back the matter with direction to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties, and to consider the question of charge against accused persons.
6 Thereafter, ld Trial Court, after hearing the fresh arguments, passed the impugned order, dated 19/05/2015, to the effect that, prima facie, offence U/s 498A/34 of IPC is made out against accused Yogesh Sharma, Chanderkanta Sharma and accused Lovely Sharma and, prima facie, offence U/s 406/323/34 is made out against accused Yogesh and, prima facie, offence U/s 506 of IPC is also made against accused Lovely Sharma and Yogesh Sharma. On 20/05/2005, Ld Trial framed the additional Charge against accused Lovely Sharma and Yogesh Sharma U/s 506 (ii) of IPC. Vide order, dated 19/05/2015, Ld Trial Court discharged accused Ruby Parmar and Sukhinder Parmar.
7. Aggrieved from the said order, revisionist has preferred this revision petition. It is contended by Ld Counsel for revisionist that the revisionist, Lovely Sharma, is sister in law of the complainant and she got married to one Brijesh Chand Sharma in the year 1986 and she is working as a Govt. servant, and after her marriage, she has been residing with her husband. The marriage between the complainant and her husband took place on 26/04/1999, and she never interefered in the matrimonial house of the complainant. It has further been contended that the allegations made are very vague and general in nature. It has further been contended that Ld Trial Court has wrongly interpreted the allegations levelled by the complainant against the revisionist. It has further been contended that the view taken by the Ld Trial Court is not in consonance with the law of the land. It has further been contended that the allegations, as levelled by the complainant, are too general in nature and do not include any direct allegations on the revisionist. It has further been contended that, in the investigation, nothing has come on record against the revisionist and does not disclose any commission of offence by the revisionist.
8. On the other hand, Ld APP has contended that there are specific allegations against the revisionist and there is no reason to disbelieve the allegations made in the complaint against the revisionist.
9 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contentions, heard the arguments of Ld Counsel for revisionist and carefully perused the entire trial court record, including the complaint and various documents on record.
10. In the present matter, complaint of the complainant is very elaborate. She has made the allegations against the present revisionist to the effect that-:
(i) she taunted her that the dowry articles given in the marriage are of inferior quality and the sarees given in the marriage cannot even be worn by the maid servants:
(ii) that revisionist, Lovely Sharma, made a call to the complainant and demanded Rs 10,000/- and said that Yogesh Sharma would return home only when the complainant arranges the said amount:
(ii) that revisionist, Lovely Sharma, abused the complainant and even threatened her that in case, the complainant makes call to any of the sister in laws or to their husbands, she would kill her.
11. In the revision, filed by Shashi Sharma, who is also sister in law of the complainant, Ld Appellate Court had discharged the accused from the charges framed against her by Ld Trial Court.
12 It is settled principle of law that, at the time of framing of charge, only the prima facie case has to be seen but while framing the charge, the Court should be sure about the existence of the strong suspicion. It has been observed, in Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr 1979 SCC (Cri) 609, that the test to determine the prima facie is naturally dependent upon the facts of each case and it would be difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. It is also an undisputed legal proposition that by and large, if two views are possible and when there exists some ‘suspicion’ as opposed to grave suspicion, court would be fully justified in discharging such accused.
13 Revisionist, Ms Lovely Sharma, is married sister in law (nanand) of the complainant. She has claimed that she got married in the year 1986 with Brijesh Chand Sharma. She is a Govt. Servant and, after her marriage, she has been residing with her husband. Marriage between the complainant and her brother had taken place on 26.04.1999 and there was no occasion for the revisionist to intervene in the matrimonial life of her brother.
14 In Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand 2003 Criminal Law Journal 2759, Hon’ble High Court has observed that in order to ascertain marital cruelty though ordinarily whole series of acts or conducts should be weighed yet an isolated act can also lead to such interference depending on its gravity or seriousness. It was also observed that there was growing tendency of giving inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband. In that case, it was held that, neither every cruelty nor harassment could be said to have the element of criminal culpability for the purposes of section 498A IPC. In that case also, the allegation against those discharged accused persons was that they did not like the cloths brought by the complainant as customary gifts for the relatives of the husband and one of the sister in law remarked that, had the marriage taken place with her own sister, more dowry would have been received. It was held that these allegations did not make out a case of either cruelty or harassment as contemplated by section 498A IPC. Such remarks might have hurt her feelings but it did not amount to tormenting her physically or mentally to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill the demands of any property etc. It was, thus, adjudicated that the complaint was highly misconceived and was being used as a tool to hold the entire household to ransom and jeopardy.
15 In the present matter also, the allegations levelled against the revisionist, Lovely Sharma, are similar in nature to the allegations levelled against other sisters in law i.e. Ruby Parmar and Shashi Sharma and seems to appear very trivial and they are very general in nature and does not create grave suspicion. It cannot be said that the allegations are sufficient to attract the ingredients of section 498A/506(II) of IPC.
16 In the present matter, it may be pointed out that accused Ruby Parmar and Sukhinder Parmar have already been discharged. Accused Ruby Parmar is the married sister of the accused husband Yogesh Sharma. Accused Lovely Sharma wife of Sh Brijesh Chand Sharma is the married sister-in-law of the complainant. She was married in the year 1986. Thus, there is no likelihood of Lovely Sharma wife of D C Sharma in interfering in the marital affair of the complainant. She was residing separately from the complainant and her husband. There is no material on the record file to show that there was any demand of dowry on her part so as to frame the charge against her. Similarly, there is nothing on the record file to show that there was any entrustment to her of any property belonging to the complainant. The tendency of falsely implicating the distant relatives, more particularly, the married sisters of the husband should be depreciated. The married sisters, most of the times, have no role to play in the married life of their brothers and their wives. Charge can be framed against them only if, prima facie, there is strong and sufficient material depicting their involvement. If, there is merely whisper of recitation in the complaint regarding the involvement of married sisters then charge should not be framed against the married sisters.
17 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that, there is no prima facie, material before the Ld Trial Court to frame charges against the accused/revisionist namely, Lovely Sharma for the offence punishable U/s 498A of IPC and 506 (II) of IPC. It may be mentioned here that other two sisters in law namely, Shashi Sharma and Ruby Parmar have already been discharged in the present matter, the allegations levelled against the present revisionist are also identical and similar in nature, hence accused/revisionist, Lovely Sharma deserves to be discharged in case FIR no. 3336/06 u/s 498A and 506(II) of IPC.
18 In view of the above, accused/revisionist Lovely Sharma is discharged in case FIR no. 3336/06 u/s 498A and 506(II) of IPC and order dated, 19.05.2015, is set aside qua accused Lovely Sharma.
19. Present Revision Petiton is, accordingly, allowed with the above observations.
20 A copy of this judgment be sent to learned Trial Court along with the trial court record.
21 File related to Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Ramesh Kumar) on 5th of October, 2016 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI) South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi