Delhi District Court
State vs Aditya Juneja on 7 December, 2017
                ROHINI COURT, DELHI

In the matter of 
CR No. 171/17

Through Chief Prosecutor, Delhi. 

Aditya Juneja
S/o Sh. N.K. Juneja, 
R/o B­2/44, Sewak Park,
3203, 2nd Floor, 
Gyan Shakti Apartments,
Dwarka, Delhi. 

Date of Institution                          :                19.09.2017
Date of reserving the order                  :                07.12.2017
Date of order                                :                07.12.2017

In the matter of
CA No. 126/17

Shalu Pruthi 
D/o Sh. Subash Pruthi
R/o 3375B, Mahendra Park, 
Rani Bagh, Delhi­110034.

Aditya Juneja
S/o Sh. N.K. Juneja, 
R/o B­2/44, First Floor,
Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi­110059

CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 1 of 18
 Also at: 
R/o 3203, Gyan Shakti Apartments,
Plot No.7, Sector­6,
Dwarka, New Delhi­75


Date of Institution                          :                25.10.2017
Date of reserving the order                  :                07.12.2017
Date of order                                :                07.12.2017

Present:         Sh. Ashok Kumar, learned APP for the 
                 State/revisionist in CR No. 171/17.
                 Sh. K. Kaushik and Sh. R.S. Goswami, Advocates for 
                 respondent­husband (accused discharged vide 
                 impugned order) in both the petitions.
                 Father of original complainant­wife in person along 
                 with Sh. Sanjeev Uniyal, Advocate in both the 

                 Remaining arguments heard. 
                 Perused the record including the TCR. 


1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of Criminal Revision petition   No.171/17   filed   by   State   and   Criminal   Appeal   No. 126/17   (treated   as   revision   petition   on   the   request   of   learned counsel for appellant) filed by original complainant­wife against the   impugned   order   dated   31/07/2017   passed   by   Ms.   Susheel Bala Dagar,MM(Mahila Court), North­West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 2 of 18 in  case   FIR no.  69/15  of   PS  Rani  Bagh,  whereby  the   accused­ husband was discharged for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the petitions are that the marriage between the parties took place on 14/07/2013. The   husband   filed   a   petition   for   divorce   on   19/11/2013,   the statement   of   original   complainant­wife   was   recorded   before learned   Family   Judge   on   09/01/2014   and   the   complaint   in question was made by original complainant­wife to CAW Cell on 17/02/2014.

3.  The   relevant   part   of   the   complaint   of   complainant qua   the   allegations   for   the   offences   u/s   498A/406   IPC   is   as under:­ “After  marriage,  they  started  torturing  me physically and   mentally,   making   demands   for   a   big   car,   cash   and   other household items such as dining table, fridge, sofa etc.  I am a central Government teacher at K.V. Sainik Vihar and during my stay in my sasural used to wake up at 5.00 a.m. daily balancing my personal as   well   as   professional   life   but   still   they   were   not   satisfied.     My husband and my in­laws family were never satisfied even after my father   has   spent   32   lakhs   (approximately)   on   the   wedding.     My parents   have   taken   loans   from   relatives   and   friends   to   spend   as much as they could on the wedding because my father­in­law has asked   my   father   to   organize   the   wedding   with   great   pomp   and show.  My parents bestowed my husband and my in­laws with cash, gold and other gifts on various ceremonies such as Roka ceremony, Shagun Ceremony, Ring Ceremony and the Wedding Ceremony.

CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 3 of 18 In total, 350 gms of gold was gifted to my husband and my in­laws family.  This included some gold (1. Husband’s Diamond ring 2. Mother­in­law’s gold set 3. Father­in­law’s ring 4. My gold set which was purchased in the name of my husband Aditya Juneja from TANISHQ shop because he said 10 percent discount on making charges would be given to him because he is an N.D.P.L. employee but the payment was done by my parents in cash.   In addition to this,   various   other   items   were   also   given   such   as   Sony   T.V.,   air conditioner, laptop, almirah, double bed, clothes and lot of other items.  All the jewellery was taken by my in­laws within 3 days of my marriage and kept by them with themselves.  Even after so much was spent on marriage, they were not satisfied and demanded for big car and more dowry after the marriage. I was regularly tortured and  beaten  for   dowry   and  other   petty   issues  by  the  boy  and   his family.   Boy and his family regularly threatened me “Agar hamari demands puri  nahi hui to hum tera raat ko gala daba denge”.  My sister­in­law interfered a lot in my day to day chores.  She used to taunt me and insult me a lot on petty issues. Due to constant torture at my in­laws house, I lost 6 kgs weight within three months of marriage.   I used to cry whenever I was at my maternal home. I visited Vaishno Devi and Amritsar with my husband and my in­laws family   in   October   and   was   beaten   by   the   boy   on   the   trip   and   I received a serious injury on my foot.  When we came back from the trip, I was in a serious pain but I was not taken to a doctor and was forced   to   do   household   work   and   scolded   too.   Due   to   constant physical and mental torture, I got into depression. My parents and brother visited my sasural on 20th October and I was forced to leave the house along with them with only 2 pairs of clothes.  After that I CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 4 of 18 was never allowed to enter the house again.   They refused to take me into the house when my parents asked them to have me there. My family constantly tried to contact them for having me back there but they never obliged. They visited our house on 2 nd November and my family asked them to take me with them but they said that until their demands are not met they will not take me with them. All my essential documents have been lying at my in­laws place but I was not allowed to take them even on repeated requests. My husband taped my voice whenever I used to have a conversation with him on phone because he never intended to have me back there. I was not even allowed to enter the apartments by the security guard on 8th December when I tried to get back there and felt insulted. I visited the   office   of   my   husband   (N.D.   P.L.   Inderpuri)   many   times   to reconcile with him but he insulted me every time.  My husband and in­laws family stopped attending calls from me or my family. My husband filed a divorce petition within 4 months of marriage even when a divorce petition cannot be filed within 1 year of marriage. Next date of hearing in the court is 2nd April 2014.

Hence   it   is   my   honest   request   to   take   appropriate stringent action as per constitution of India against 1. Aditya Juneja (Husband)   2.   Narinder   Kumar   Juneja   (father­in­law)   3.   Renu Juneja (mother­in­law) 4. Akanksha Juneja (sister­in­law) because they constantly tortured and harassed me physcially and mentally”.

4. The   relevant   portion   of   the   impugned   order   dated 31/07/2017 of learned Trial Court is reproduced below:­ “The allegations of complainant are that her marriage CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 5 of 18 was solemnized with the accused on 14.017.2013. After marriage they started torturing her making demand of a big car, cash and other   household   articles   like   dining   table,   fridge,   sofa   etc.     It   is alleged   that   the   father   of   the   complainant   spent   Rs.32   lakh approximately after taking loan from relatives and friends on the wedding   but   her   husband   and   in   laws   were   not   satisfied.     It   is alleged that all the jewellery was taken by her in laws within three days of marriage and kept with them. It is alleged that complainant was regularly tortured, beaten for dowry and other petty issues by the boy and his family who regularly threatened her saying that in case their demands are not fulfilled they will press her throat in the night.  Sister­in­law  used  to taunt her  on  petty  issues. She stated that she was beaten by the boy on the Vaisno Devi trip and she received injury on foot.   On 20.10.2013 her parents and brother visited   her   matrimonial   house   and   she   was   forced   to   leave   with them.   It   is   alleged   that   despite   contacting   them   they   stated   that until   their   demands   are   met,   they   will   not   take   her   back.     It   is alleged that her husband tape recorded her conversation with him on phone as he does not intend to take her back.  She was not even to   allow   to   enter   the   apartments   by   the   security   guards   on   8 th December and felt insulted.  She visited the officer of her husband of NDPL Inderpuri many times to reconcile the matter but he insulted every   time.  Thereafter,  her  husband  filed  a  divorce  petition.    On these   allegations   FIR   was   got   registered   and   investigation   was carried out.

The   IO   has   reported   that   no   bills   of   the   istridhan articles   were   produced   by   the   complainant   despite   notice   u/s   91Cr.P.C. The complainant has not even given any anser to the said CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 6 of 18 notice   regarding   the   istridhan   articles   of   the   marriage.   It   is   also stated by the investigating agency that the complainant is suffering from mental disease since the year 2003 and she is under treatment. After marriage she could not take her medicine.   The investigating agency has placed on record the statement of the complainant dated 09.01.2014 on oath before the court of Ms. Seema Maini, ld. Judge Family Courts, Rohini in HMA case No. 543/13, New No. 109/14 Aditya Juneja v. Shalu Paruthi.  The istridhan articles have already been handed over to the complainant as per the admitted list.  It is reported by the investigating agency that no bills of the disputed articles were produced by the complainant.

As regards the allegations for the offences u/s 406 IPCin Annu Gill v. State V AD (Delhi) 411 it has been held that no constitute   offence   u/s   406   IPC   there   must   be   clear   and   specific allegation that accused was entrusted with some property or domain over   it,   by   the   complainant,   that   the   accused   has   dishonestly misappropriated   or   converted   the   same   to   his   own   use   or   that accused refused to return the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant.

The complainant has nowhere stated to have entrusted any property or her istridhan articles to the accused persons.   No date   is   mentioned   on   which   she   ever   raised   any   demand   of   her stridhan articles from the accused. It is not the case that the accused persons ever refused to hand over the stridhan/other articles  to the complainant. Moreover no bills of the alleged istridhan articles have been produced by the complainant. Hence, there is lack of sufficient material for framing of charge for the offence u/s 406 IPC against the accused.

CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 7 of 18 The complainant has stated that there was taunting by the accused but no date  is mentioned on which  she was taunted upon.    In  AIR   1996   SC  67    it   has  been   held  that   taunting   for bringing   insufficient   dowry   is   distinct   from   demand   of   dowry. Though taunting for insufficient dowry is also uncivilized act but does not come in the purview of Section 498A IPC and hence not sufficient to constitute offence u/s 498A IPC.  Moreover, no date is mentioned on which accused allegedly slapped the complainant.  In the   present   case   there   are   no   specific   allegations   of   demand   of dowry.  It is not clear which car and how much cash was demanded. No date is mentioned when any such alleged demand was raised by the accused. There are no specific date mentioned on which cruelty was   committed   by   accused   and   the   allegations   regarding   threats being   extended   are   vague   in   nature.   There   is   not   even   a   single allegation   of   any   continuous   cruelty.     Hence,   no   charge   for   the offence u/s 498A IPC is made out against the accused.

In   the   case   titled   as  Smt.   Neera   Singh   v.   State, Criminal   M.C.   No.   7262/2006   of   Delhi   High   Court  it   was observed   that   “vague   allegations   as   made   in   complaint   by   the petitioner against every member of the family of the husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and allegation have to be   scrutinized   carefully   by   the   court   before   framing   of   charges.” General allegations are not sufficient to procure section 498A IPC inSurajmal Barithia v. State of West Bengal 11 (2003) DMC 127 (P&H).

There   are   allegations   that   accused   husband   tried   to suffocate   the   complainant   on   28th   July.     It   is   not   clear   by   the complainant has not reported the alleged incident earlier.  She has CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 8 of 18 even failed to report the same in the complaint.   It is only when Section   91   Cr.P.C   notice   was   given   that   for   the   first   time   such submissions have come forth which seems to be an after thought. No physical injuries are reported, no MLC is on record of beatings. There are no specific dates or incidents of willful conduct of such nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health mentioned by the complainant.  There is no date mentioned by the complainant on which she was coerced or harassed to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Each and every harassment is not cruelty which can be covered under the ambit of section 498AIPC. Hence, the allegations mentioned in the charge­sheet do not attract Section 498A IPC.

In  Union of India v. Prafful Kumar 1979 AIR SC 366 it has been held that : “the judge while considering the question of framing the charges has undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for  the limited purpose  of  finding  out whether  or not a Prima facie case against the accused has been made out.  Where the materials placed before the court disclosed grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully  justified in framing a charge and proceeding  with  the trial. The test to determine a Prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal   application.     By   and   large   however   if   two   views   are equally   possible   and   the   Judge   is   satisfied   that   the   evidence produced before him raises some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.”

CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 9 of 18

5. Learned  APP   for   the  State   and   learned  counsel  for original   complainant­wife   have   submitted   that   at   the   stage   of charge, meticulous examination of the evidence is not required and it is to be seen whether prima facie case is made out or not. They   have   further   submitted   that   marriage   of   the   original complainant was solemnized three months prior to her leaving the matrimonial home and that specific allegations of cruelty and harassment for dowry and dishonest misappropriation of stridhan articles of the original complainant were levelled in the complaint but learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused on the ground  that  specific  dates  of  offence   of  demand  of   dowry  and beatings have not been mentioned although the same were not required   due   to   short   span   of   time   period   spent   by   original complainant   at   the   matrimonial   home.   They   had   further submitted that during inquiry at CAW Cell, in reply to notice u/s 91   Cr.P.C.   and   her   supplementary   statement   recorded   u/s   161 Cr.P.C.,   original   complainant   has   categorically   stated   that accused­husband   extended   beatings   to   her,   committed   cruelty upon   her   for   the   demand   of   dowry,   specifically   a   big   car   and threatened her.  In support of his arguments, learned APP for the State has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “K. Leela Beni Vs State” 2010 (2) C.C. Cases (SC) 113 to   submit   that   allegations   made   in   the   first   information   report (complaint   in   this   case)   have   to   be   accepted   as   true   and allegations   made   in   the   FIR   and   material   collected   during   the course of investigation are required to be considered at the stage of charge, whereas truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into as it is always a matter of trial.

CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 10 of 18

6. Learned counsels for respondent­husband have relied upon following judgments:­

i) ‘Ajay Pal & Ors. V State’ 2017 [2] JCC 1154 of   Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

ii) ‘Shakson Belthissor V. State of Kerala & Anr.’   2009 [3] JCC 2233 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of  India.

iii) ‘Sukhbir Jain & Anr. V. State‘ 1994(1) C.C.  Cases 609 (HC) of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

iv) ‘Binod Kumar & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Anr.’  2015 [1] JCC 664 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of  India.

v) ‘Lakhwinder Singh V. State of Punjab‘ 2000  CRI. L.J. 4751  of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High   Court.

vi)  ‘Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. V. Monica‘ 2009   [3] JCC 2453 of  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

vii) ‘Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar  Samal and Anr’, Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1977  (Date of Judgment 06/11/1978)(equivalent  citation AIR 1979 SC 366).

7. As   regards   the   other   allegations   of   cruelty   and harassment   for   dowry   demand   etc.   (beyond   her   original complaint dated 17/02/2014) levelled by original complainant­ wife in her subsequent statements to the police including in her reply   to   notice   u/s   91   Cr.P.C   ,   since   no   such   averments   were made   by   the   complainant   in   her   first   statement   to   the   police, CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 11 of 18 therefore   subsequent   plea   to   fill­up   the   lacuna   cannot   be permitted in view of law laid down in the case of ‘Smt. Deepa Bajwa Vs State & Anr.’ {115 (2004) Delhi Law Times 202}.

8. In view of the reason given in the preceding para on the basis of case law relied upon, this Court has to examine as to whether   from   the   allegations   made   in   the   original   complaint dated   17/02/2014   only,   learned   Trial   Court   was   justifiable   in discharging the accused­husband for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC.

9. In the case of ‘Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs State & Anr.’ {2007 (4) JCC 3074}, it was held in para No. 10 to 16 that:­ “10.     Under   Explanation   (a)   the   cruelty   has   to   be   of   such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

11.     Explanation   (b)   to   Section   498­A   provides   that cruelty   means   harassment   of   the   woman   where   such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related   to   her   to   meet   any   unlawful   demand   for   any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

12. Explanation   (b)   does   not   make   each   and   every harassment   cruelty.   The   harassment   has   to   be   with   a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 12 of 18 related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It   is   only   where   harassment   is   shown   to   have   been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section.

13. In the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18, the Bombay High Court had observed that it is not every   harassment   or   every   type   of   cruelty   that   would attract Section 498­A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands.

14.   Similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur Vs. Stated of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports   53   wherein   it   was   observed  that   offence   under Section 498­A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry.

15.  While interpreting the provisions of Section 304­B, 498­A, 306 and 324  IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P. V. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the supreme court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty   under   explanation   9b)   to   Section   498­A   must CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 13 of 18 have   nexus   with   the   demand   of   dowry   and   if   this   is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of Section 498­ A IPC.

16.   It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498­A IPC and afore noted judicial pronouncements that pre­condition for attracting the provisions of Explanation

(b) to Section 498­A is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then such a   cruelty   will   not   be   covered   under   explanation   (b)   to Section 498­A IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage4 Act, 1955 as held by the Supreme Court in   the   decision   reported   as   Shobha   Rani   v.   Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121.   In said case, it was observed that  cruelty under Section 498­A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955″.

10. Thus   for   making   out   charge   for   the   offences   u/s 498A/406   IPC,   there   should   be   allegations   of   beating   and harassment to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal dowry demand. Perusal of the original complaint reveals that no date, time or place of alleged commission of offence u/s 498A IPChave been mentioned in the complaint. Complaint also does not disclose   as   to   what   words   were   used   in   committing   mental cruelty,   how   the   alleged   beatings   were   given,   the   mode   and manner of the same and who specifically committed mental and physical cruelty towards her.  Admittedly, there is no MLC of the CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 14 of 18 complainant   pertaining   to   her   alleged   beatings   etc.     Even   no complaint   in   this   regard   was   made   to   police   or   to   any   other authority   immediately   after   the   incident   or   thereafter   prior   to filing the complaint in question. The complaint in question was made   after   filing   of   divorce   petition   by   the   husband   and appearance of the original complainant­wife before the concerned Family Court on 09/01/2014, when she admitted that she was under   depression   prior   to   her   marriage   and   after   marriage depression relapsed due  to non­taking of medicine by her as a result of her fault.  Page no. 108 of the charge­sheet filed by the investigating   agency   is   copy   of   medical­cum­fitness   certificate dated 12/05/2009 (prior to marriage of complainant), wherein she has been reported to be suffering from bipolar disease.

11. In   the   case   of  ‘Shakson   Belthissor   Vs   State   of Kerala & Anr.’ 2009 [3] JCC 2233  relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent­husband, it was held that:­  “In order to understand the meaning of the expression “cruelty” as envisaged under Section 498A, there must be such a conduct on the part of the husband or relatives of the husband of woman which is of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman.”

12. Further, in the case of ‘Ajay Pal & Ors.’ 2017[2] JCC 1154 relied upon by husband, it was held that allegations levelled against the appellant (therein) are not credible in nature as they miserably fall short of the basic details such as the day, date, time CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 15 of 18 or any definite or particular incident of any harassment towards demand of dowry with respect to the deceased and thus fail to attract the scope of Section 498A IPC.

13. Learned Trial Court has rightly held on the basis of case   law   reported   in  AIR   1996   SC   67  that   mere   taunting   for bringing insufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and hence the same is not sufficient to constitute offence u/s 498AIPC.  Learned Trial Court has further rightly observed that there are no specific allegations of demand of dowry as it is not clear which car and how much cash was demanded and no date with respect   to   the   same   is   mentioned.   It   was   further   correctly observed that no specific date was mentioned on which alleged cruelty   was   committed   and   allegations   regarding   threats   being extended are vague in nature.   It is further borne out from the record that there is not even a single allegation of any continuous cruelty. It was further rightly opined that there are no specific dates or incidents of willful conduct of such nature as is likely to drive   the   original   complainant   to   commit   suicide   or   to   cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health and that each and every harassment is not cruelty which can be covered under the ambit of Section 498A IPC. Learned Trial Court has further rightly relied upon the case law mentioned in the impugned order to the effect that general allegations are not sufficient to procure Section   498A   IPC.   Learned   Trial   Court   has   further   rightly observed that the allegations against husband of having trying to suffocate the original complainant on 28th July is an afterthought since the said incident was not reported earlier and even in the CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 16 of 18 complaint and the same surfaced only in reply to notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C.

14. As regards the allegations qua offence u/s 406 IPC, the admitted stridhan  articles were  returned to complainant as per  admitted list and it has been  reported by the  investigating agency  that   no bills  of  disputed  articles  were   produced   by  the complainant.  Learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the case law in the matter ‘Annu Gill V. State‘ 2001 V AD (Delhi) 411, wherein it was held that to constitute offence u/s 406 IPC, there must be clear and specific allegation that accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it by the complainant and the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to   his   own   use   or   that   the   accused   has   refused   to   return   the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. The complainant   has   nowhere   specifically   stated   to   have   entrusted any property or her stridhan articles to the husband. Even no date is mentioned on which she ever raised any demand for return of her stridhan articles.   It is not the case of the complainant that husband ever refused to hand over the stridhan/other articles to complainant.

15. For framing of charge, there has to be a prima facie case or existence of grave suspicion against the accused. It is not that on slightest suspicion, a charge has to be framed against the accused.   It   is   true   that   meticulous   examination   of   material produced on record is not needed at the stage of charge but Court has   the   power   to   sift   and   weigh   the   evidence   for   the   limited CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 17 of 18 purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused.

16. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion   and   case   laws relied   upon,   it   is   clear   that   there   is   no   sufficient   material   for framing of charge for the offences u/s 498A/406 IPC against the husband as the charge cannot be framed on slightest suspicion. Hence, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. A signed copy of the order be kept in both the petitions.

17.  Copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent back to Ld. Trial Court.

18. Both the petitions be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in the Open Court                 (Ashutosh Kumar)
on 07.12.2017                        Special Judge­02 (P.C. ACT), CBI
                                   Distt. N/W, Rohini Courts, Delhi 

CR No. 171/17 State V Aditya Juneja & CA No. 126/17 Shalu Puruthi V Aditya Juneja 18 of 18

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s