IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
1. Criminal Revision No. 27/1/2016
U.I.D. No. 55969/2016
P.S. Moti Nagar
State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Public Prosecutor, West District,
Delhi.
......... Revisionist
Versus
1. Smt. Vimal Dhawan W/o Passi Dhawan,
R/o 2671, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
2. Sh. Babbal Dhawan S/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
R/o 2671, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
3. Ms. Neelam Dhawan W/o Sh. Babal Dhawan,
R/o 2671, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
4. Sh. Passi Dhawan S/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
R/o 2671, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
5. Ms. Vijay Dhawan W/o Sh. Meghraj Dhawan,
R/o C4/27, Lawrance Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi.
6. Ms. Leelu Gulati W/o Sh. Yogesh Gulati,
R/o 4759, Roshnara Road, Delhi.
7. Sh. Yogesh Gulati,
R/o 4759, Roshnara Road, Delhi.
8. Smt. Shobha Dhawan W/o Sh. Vijay Dhawan,
R/o C4/27, Lawrance Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi.
9. Sh. Vijay Dhingra S/o Sh. Murlidhar,
UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc.
UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
1 of 14
R/o C1/B, Vijay Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
10. Smt. Ved Dhingra W/o Sh. Vijay Dhgingra,
R/o C1/B, Vijay Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
....... Respondents
Date of filing: 01.06.2016
Date of arguments: 05.09.2017
Date of order: 13.09.2017
2. Criminal Revision No. 75/1/2016
U.I.D. No. 55806/2016
P.S. Moti Nagar
Ms. Aarti Dhawan,
W/o Sh. Virender Dhawan,
R/o House No. B42, 1st Floor,
Karampura, Delhi110015
(Through State)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
....Revisionist
Versus
1. Sh. Virender Dhawan S/o Late Sh. Megh Raj Dhawan,
R/o C4/27, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi.
2. Sh. Passi Dhawan
3. Sh. Babbal Dhawan
4. Smt. Vimal Dhawan
5. Ms. Neelam Dhawan
6. Ms. Vijay Dhawan
7. Smt. Shobha Dhawan
8. Smt.Neelu Gulati,
9. Sh. Yogesh Gulati,
UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc.
UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
2 of 14
10. Sh. Vijay Dhingra,
11. Sh. Ved Dhingra
.....Respondents
Date of filing: 07.05.2016
Date of arguments: 05.09.2017
Date of order: 13.09.2017
O R D E R
1. The present Criminal Revision No. 55969.2016 under
Section 397/399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter
referred as Cr.P.C.) is filed by the State, Govt. of N.C. T of
Delhi, through Ld. Public Prosecutor against the order passed
by the Court of Ms. Ruchika Singla, Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mahila Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, against the order on charge dated 07.04.2016, in a case
under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. The second revision petition is filed by the complainant
Aarti Dhawan under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. praying for
setting aside the discharge order dated 07.04.2016 passed by
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR no. 83/2008,
UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc.
UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
3 of 14
Police Station Moti Nagar, under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
3. Both the revision petition have been filed against the
same impugned order of the charge dated 07.04.2016.
Therefore, both revision petition are taken together for
disposal.
Brief Facts
4. A case FIR bearing no. 83/2008 was registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC on 10.03.2008 on the statement of the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint in CAW Cell, West District, Delhi. After inquiry the complaint was sent to SHO concerned for registration of the FIR. The complainant has alleged commissions of the offence punishable under Section 406/498A IPC against the 11 persons. The police after completion of the investigation filed the chargesheet against 11 accused persons. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had summoned all the accused persons except accused Vijay UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
4 of 14 Dhingra and Ved Dhingra vide order dated 20.10.2011. The Ld. Trial Court after hearing the arguments on the charge vide order dated 07.04.2016 has held that prima facie material is on record against the accused Virender (husband) for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC. However, the Ld. Trial Court has discharged the remaining accused persons for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC.
5. The State and the complainant being aggrieved by the order of the discharge filed the separate revision petition. It is stated that order of the discharge is bad in law and perverse. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that collective reading of FIR, complaint, supplementary statement of complainant and statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would reveal that prima facie case is made out against all the accused persons, who are discharged. It is UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
5 of 14 stated that there are specific allegations of the dowry demand against all the accused persons. That specific incident regarding demand of dowry has been mentioned. That the name of the accused persons has been specifically mentioned. It is prayed that in view of the grounds of the revision, the order of the discharge may kindly be set aside.
6. The notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents. All the respondents put the appearance in person being represented by Sh. Bhupender Methani, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons. The revision petition is strongly opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents.
7. I have carefully perused the material on record and gone through the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Sh. Bhupender Methani, Ld. Counsel for respondents/accused persons.
UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
6 of 14
8. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has filed the revision petition against the respondent Vijay Dhingra and Ved Dhingra. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has already declined to summon the respondent Vijay Dhingra and Ved Dhingra vide order dated 20.10.2010. The said oder was never challenged and has attained finality. Therefore, in view of the said order dated 20.10.2010, the present revision petition is not maintainable against respondent Vijay Dhingra and Ved Dhingra.
9. Before proceedings further, the relationship of the respondents with the complainant needs to be reproduced: (I) Virender Dhawan : Husband (II) Passi Dhawan : Chacha Sasur (III) Babbal Dhawan : Chachi Saas (IV) Vimal Dhawan : Devar (V) Neelam Dhawan : Devar (VI) Vijay Dhawan : Devar (VII) Shobha Dhawan : Devrani (VIII) Neelu Gulati : Nanad (IX) Yogesh Gulati : Nandoi (X) Vijay Dhingra : Fufa Sasur UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
7 of 14
(XI) Ved Dhingra : Bua Saas
10. The complainant in the complaint has made some
specific allegations against her mother in law, who had already expired. The complainant has alleged that after 4/5 days of the marriage, her mother in law and both aunts namely Vimal and Babbal took away her jewellery and money. However, the complainant in her complaint made to the ACP dated 04.01.2008, has specifically mentioned that all her gold jewellery were taken away by her husband. The complainant has also stated that almost a month after her marriage, her sister in law came to her matrimonial house and accused Leelu and her mother in law took one gold set and bangles from her. However, as per the list of articles filed by the complainant, there are no gold bangles mentioned which were given to the complainant in her marriage.
11. The Ld. Trial Court after going through the material on UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
8 of 14 record has made the opinion that there is vague allegations as specific incident has not been elaborated and the complainant has not clarified as to when all persons have done so. The Ld. Trial Court has also stated that the complainant has not specified the amount or what articles were demanded by the accused persons. There is no medical documents to substantiate the allegations of being beaten up. There is no statement of any witness to corroborate the allegations of the complainant. The statement of the mother of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not disclose any demand of dowry made in her presence.
12. The perusal of the material on record would reveals that the complainant has implicated all the near and the distant relatives of husband in the present case.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported as Preeti Gupta & Another Vs State of Jharkhand UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
9 of 14 & Another 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) has observed as under: “A large number of complaints under Section 498A/406 IPC are not bonafide. The majority of the complaints are filed either on the advice of members of Bar or with their concurrence with exaggerated versions. Large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society”.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recently came down heavily regarding the misuse of Section 406/498A IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment titled as Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar & Another (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273 has held as under: There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact t hat Section 498A IPC is a cognizable and non bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
10 of 14 disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandfathers and grandmothers of the husband, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested”.
15. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of consideration on the charge only a prima facie case is to be seen. The provision of Section 227 of Cr.P.C gives power to the Court to discharge the accused. It is duty of the Court to find out whether a prima case is made out against the accused or not at the stage of charge. The Court has to consider whether the materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient enough to justifying the framing of charge. If two views are equally possible and the Court is satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution give rise to some suspicion and not the grave suspicion against the accused, the Court is justified to accept the view which give rise only to some suspicion and discharge the accused in exercising power under Section 227 of UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
11 of 14 Cr.P.C.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as “Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007)2 Supreme Court Cases 135” held that:
“In exercising powers under Section 227 Cr.PC, the settled position of law is that the judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh 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 disclose 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; by and large if two view are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gave rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227Cr.PC, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc.
UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
12 of 14 should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
17. The charge against the accused/husband for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC has already been framed by the Ld. Trial Court. The perusal of the Ld. Trial Court record would reveals that the complainant has not levelled specific allegations for commission of the offence punishable under Section 406/498A IPC against the accused persons, who are discharged by the Ld. Trial Court. The accused who are discharged by the Ld. Trial Court are the distant relatives of the husband of the complainant.
18. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 07.04.2016, regarding the discharge of the respondents/accused persons namely Passi Dhawan, Babbal Dhawan, Vimal Dhawan, Neelam Dhawan, Vijay Dhawan, Shobha Dhawan, UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
13 of 14 Neelu Gulati and Yogesh Gulati for commission of the offence punishable under Section 406/498A IPC. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by State through Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ms. Aarti Dhawan, complainant against the order dated 07.04.2016 is dismissed.
19. Revision files be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
20. TCR be sent back along with copy of this order. Announced in the open court today i.e. 13th September, 2017 (DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) ASJ03, WEST/DELHI UID No. 55969/2016 State Vs Vimal Dhawan Etc. UID No. 55806/2016 Aarti Dhawan Vs Virender Dhawan Etc.
14 of 14
