No date and time of cruelty, discharged by delhi district court

Excerpt:

The golden rule of framing the charge is that if all the evidence as cited by the prosecution, come as it is on the record, if it would lead to conviction of the accused persons then charge has to be framed, otherwise not. On perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant Nisha, it is evident that in her entire complaint she has not given any date, time or month when she was harassed by the respondents for demand of dowry. The only allegation against the respondents is that her jethani Nirmala and Jeth Ram Kumar are not behaving her properly and their behaviour cruel towards her and used to demand dowry again and again, but specific conduct of both the 5 OF 7 respondents have not been explained, what they have done, neither any date, time or month has been given, when they have demanded dowry.

Furthermore, merely demand of dowry covered u/s. 498A IPC until and unless they have done some act in pursuance of that demand of dowry. As far as the allegation that respondents have taken Rs.35,000/­ from her father by telling a lie, in my view the said allegation may amount to cheating, but no cruelty or entrustment of any property as covered u/s. 498A/406 IPC have been explained. The other allegation that accused Rajesh is totally under control of Nisha and Ram Kumar and saying of Nirmala that she could be done anything from Rajesh is not amount to cruelty.

7. In such circumstances, in my view the allegations made in the complaint does not constitute cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. Further, since in the complaint there is no allegation of entrustment of any property of the complainant to the respondents, which was given at the 6 OF 7 time of her marriage or later on, hence, even prima facie offence u/s. 406 IPC is also not made out. Mostly allegations in the complaint are against husband/accused Rajesh, who is absconding, in my view husband is absconded charge cannot be framed against the other respondents.

 

 

Delhi District Court
Nisha vs State on 2 July, 2012
Author: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
1

IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE(01): OUTER: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.03/12
FIR NO.404/07.
PS­NARELA.
U/S.498A/406 IPC

NISHA W/O. SHRI RAJESH
D/O. SHRI INDER SINGH
R/O. NAI BASTI, BANKNER,
NARELA, DELHI. …..REVISIONIST
VERSUS

1. STATE
(THROUGH GNCT OF DELHI)

2. SHRI RAM KUMAR
S/O. LATE AJIT SINGH
3. SMT. NIRMALA
W/O. SHRI RAM KUMAR
BOTH R/O. AIR FORCE COLONY,
BAHADURGARH, HARYANA. ……. RESPONDENTS
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2012 PASSED
BY MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL, LD. MM,
ROHINI, DELHI, IN FIR NO.404/07, U/S. 498A/406
IPC, PS­NARELA.
Date of Institution in Sessions Court:10.02.2012
Date of arguments:02.07.2012
Date of Order:02.07.2012

1 OF 7
2

AND
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.08/12
FIR NO.404/07.
PS­NARELA.
U/S.498A/406 IPC.

STATE
THROUGH PP DELHI …..REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. SHRI RAM KUMAR
S/O. LATE AJIT SINGH
2. SMT. NIRMALA
W/O. SHRI RAM KUMAR
BOTH R/O. GALI NO.1,
BALOR ROAD, ARYA NAGAR,
BAHADURGARH, HARYANA. ……. RESPONDENTS
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2012 PASSED
BY MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL, LD. MM,
ROHINI, DELHI, IN FIR NO.404/07, U/S. 498A/406
IPC, PS­NARELA.
Date of Institution in Sessions Court:18.02.2012
Date of arguments:02.07.2012
Date of Order:02.07.2012

ORDER:
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose off the Revision Petition filed by the State and the Appeal filed by the appellant/complainant 2 OF 7 Nisha, as both the petitions are arising out of the same order, passed by the ld. MM in case FIR No.404/07, dated 09.01.2012, u/s. 498A/406 IPC, PS – Narela, whereby ld. MM had discharged both the respondents Ram Kumar and Nirmala.

2. The case of the prosecution is that appellant/complainant Nisha was married with accused Rajesh (P.O.) on 30.03.2004 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Air Force Colony, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. But, after sometime, accused started demanding more dowry and accused Rajesh gave her beating after consuming liquor and also told her that, she should bring more and more money from her parental house. Her father gave 2­3 times some money, but they were not happy and treated her with cruelty, therefore, she had filed a complaint on 22.03.2007 before CAW Cell and on the basis of said complaint present FIR was registered. After completion of investigations, chargesheet was filed against the respondents Ram Kumar and Nirmala, whereas accused Rajesh (husband 3 OF 7 of the complainant Nisha) could not apprehended despite efforts.

3. Ld. MM vide order dated 09.01.2012 discharged both the accused persons on the ground that neither there is specific allegations that demand of dowry against the respondents, nor there is specific allegation for entrustment of any property. Against the said order, complainant Nisha had filed the appeal u/s. 374 Cr.P.C. whereas stated had filed the revision petition, whereby both the complainant and State prayed that the discharge order to be set aside and charge u/s. 498A/406 IPC be framed against both the accused/respondents.

4. Shri S.C. Sroai, ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for the complainant/appellant has argued that there are specific allegations of demand of dowry by both the respondents and harassing the complainant Nisha for not fulfilling the said demand, hence, ld. MM has committed grave error while discharging the respondents/accused persons.

5. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued 4 OF 7 that since the allegations of demand of dowry are vague as no date or time has been specified and since there is no allegation of entrustment of any property to the respondents, therefore, ld. MM has rightly discharged the respondents/accused persons and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the record. The golden rule of framing the charge is that if all the evidence as cited by the prosecution, come as it is on the record, if it would lead to conviction of the accused persons then charge has to be framed, otherwise not. On perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant Nisha, it is evident that in her entire complaint she has not given any date, time or month when she was harassed by the respondents for demand of dowry. The only allegation against the respondents is that her jethani Nirmala and Jeth Ram Kumar are not behaving her properly and their behaviour cruel towards her and used to demand dowry again and again, but specific conduct of both the 5 OF 7 respondents have not been explained, what they have done, neither any date, time or month has been given, when they have demanded dowry.

Furthermore, merely demand of dowry covered u/s. 498A IPC until and unless they have done some act in pursuance of that demand of dowry. As far as the allegation that respondents have taken Rs.35,000/­ from her father by telling a lie, in my view the said allegation may amount to cheating, but no cruelty or entrustment of any property as covered u/s. 498A/406 IPC have been explained. The other allegation that accused Rajesh is totally under control of Nisha and Ram Kumar and saying of Nirmala that she could be done anything from Rajesh is not amount to cruelty.

7. In such circumstances, in my view the allegations made in the complaint does not constitute cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. Further, since in the complaint there is no allegation of entrustment of any property of the complainant to the respondents, which was given at the 6 OF 7 time of her marriage or later on, hence, even prima facie offence u/s. 406 IPC is also not made out. Mostly allegations in the complaint are against husband/accused Rajesh, who is absconding, in my view husband is absconded charge cannot be framed against the other respondents.

8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the order passed by the ld. MM whereby discharging both the respondents Ram Kumar and Nirmala, hence, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition as well as in the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant Nisha. Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. Trial court record be sent back to the trial court concerned alongwith copy of order. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court (SANJEEV KUMAR) today i.e. 02.07.2012. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE- 01 (OUTER) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.

7 OF 7

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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