Smt. Rekha Jain vs The State

6Delhi District Court
Smt. Rekha Jain vs The State on 12 September, 2017
IN   THE   COURT   OF   SH.   ASHUTOSH   KUMAR,   SPECIAL
JUDGE­02   (P.C.ACT),   CBI,   NORTH­WEST   DISTRICT,
                ROHINI COURT, DELHI

In the matter of :­

CR No: 54/2016
CR No(New): 49933/2016


1. Smt. Rekha Jain
C­101, Sector XU 3
Greater Noida
Gautam Buddh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh 201308                                 .........Revisionist

Vs

1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

2. Smt. Sonia
W/o Sh. Shasak Jain
D/o Sh. Hari Chand Verma
R/o H.No. 108, Pocket­7,
Sector­22, Rohini, Delhi                              ......Respondents

                                        AND 

CR No: 53/2016
CR No.(New): 49934/2016

Smt. Neetu Jain
W/o Sh. Pulkit Jain
R/o F­210, First Floor,
Sushant Lok­II,
Sector­57, Gurgaon                                    .......Revisionist


CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16                               22 of 21
 vs

1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

2. Smt. Sonia
W/o Sh. Shasak Jain
D/o Sh. Hari Chand Verma
R/o H.No. 108, Pocket­7,
Sector­22, Rohini, Delhi                           ..........Respondents


                                        AND

CR No:52/2016
CR No.(New): 49935/2016


Sh. Shasak Jain
C­101, Sector XU 3
Greater Noida
Gautam Buddh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh, 201308                                .......Revisionist

vs

1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

2. Smt. Sonia
W/o Sh. Shasak Jain
D/o Sh. Hari Chand Verma
R/o H.No. 108, Pocket­7,
Sector­22, Rohini, Delhi                            ..........Respondents


Date of Institution                      :    21.11.2016
Date of reserving the order              :    08.09.2017
Date of order                            :    12.09.2017




CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16                                   22 of 21
 Present:         All the three revisionists of aforesaid different 
                 revision petitions are present in person.
                 Sh. Shiv Kumar, ld. Addl. PP for the 
State/respondent no.1.
                 Sh. Hari Chand Verma, father of respondent no.2/ 
complainant alongwith ld. Counsel Sh. Maninderjeet Singh.


                                        ORDER

1. Vide   this   common   order,   I   shall   dispose   of   the criminal   revision   petitions   no.54/16   (New   No.49933/2016), 53/16 (New No.49934/2016) and 52/16 (New No.49935/2016 filed   by   the   husband,   cousin   sister­in­law   and   mother­in­law respectively of the original complainant/respondent no.2 herein, u/s   397/399   Cr.P.C   against   the   impugned   order   dated 17.10.2016  passed by Ms. Sushila Bala Dagar, Ld. MM (Mahila Court), North­West, Rohini Court, Delhi in case FIR no. 677/2014 of   PS   Begum   Pur,   vide   which   charge   for   the   offences   u/s 498A/323/34   IPC  &   u/s  506   IPC   was  framed  against   husband Shasak Jain and charge for the offences u/s 498A/323/406/34 IPC   was   framed   against   mother­in­law   Rekha   Jain   and   cousin sister­in­law (‘bhabi’) Neetu Jain .

2. I   have   heard   the   revisionists,   Ld.   Addl.   PP   for   the State/respondent   no.1   and   Ld.   Counsel   for   respondent no.2/complainant   and   perused   the   record   including   TCR   and CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 written submissions carefully.

3. Facts   admitted   are   that   the   marriage   between   the complainant and one of the revisionists Shasak Jain took place on 14.11.2011 and complainant stayed at her matrimonial home till 30.07.2013, when she left the matrimonial home, whereas claim of   complainant   is   that   she   was   abused   by   her   husband   and mother­in­law and forcibly turned out of matrimonial home on that date.

4. The complainant has made three complaints to police first dated 04.08.2013, second dated 05.08.2013 and third dated 18.03.2014.

5. The first complaint dated 04.08.2013 was made by the   complainant   to   SHO   PS   Begum   Pur,   Delhi   against   her husband Shasak Jain and mother­in­law Rekha Jain relating to domestic violence, dowry demand and physical & mental cruelty by them qua her. She has stated in the said complaint that due to non fulfillment of dowry demand as per their wishes, both the mother and son physically and mentally harass her. It is further mentioned that their nature is so aggressive that they get angry on trivial issues and beating for them is a small thing.   She has also mentioned that the morning of the house starts with quarrel and ends with fight in the night, when all of them are together.  It is   further   stated   that   they   are   not   social   and   are   very   greedy. Their demands increase on festivals. She has further stated that her parents fulfilled the demands as per their capacity but still CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 they are not satisfied and use abusive language for her parents and harass her. It is also mentioned that on 06.03.2011 on the occasion of Holi when the complainant asked for payment of fee of   her   M.Sc.   II   year,   Shasak   Jain   threw   boiling   milk   on   the complainant,  scar   of  which  is  still   there   on  her   thigh.  She  has further   stated   that   when   they   refused   to   pay   for   her   fee,   her father   got   loan   sanctioned   for   her   after   mortgaging   his   FDRs. When complainant used to repay the said loan from her salary, they used to say that she is doing job for her mother and father. It is further alleged that on 26.07.2013, Rekha Jain threw her old sleeper bag upon her (complainant) and thereafter both mother and son started beating her as the complainant had forgotten her new slippers on the roof. It is further mentioned that parents of the complainant were called time and again by making calls but due to their aggressive behaviour, parents of the complainant did not want to intervene. It is also stated that the complainant was pregnant   for   two   months   and   because   of   beatings,   her   health deteriorated. It is also stated that when the quarrel increased then on 30th  July, complainant made call at Phone Number 181.   On 30th July, when the parents of complainant came to ask her well being,   they   (in­laws)   started   abusing   and   defaming   the complainant   in   an   aggressive   manner.   They   threw   the complainant   out   of   matrimonial   home   and   she   came   to   reside with her parents on 30th  July. It is further mentioned that when the complainant was thrown out, her parents, her brother Rahul and   Gaurav,   cousin   sister’s   husband   Sudhir,   his   mother   Neetu Jain and  “Badi Mami”(maternal aunt)  of  Shasak Jain were also present.     It   is   lastly   mentioned   that   as   a   result   of   the   said CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 beatings, mis­carriage of complainant took place on 01.08.2013.

6. The   second   complaint  dated  05.08.2013  was  made by   the   complainant   to   ACP,   CAW   Cell,   Outer   District,   Rohini, Sector­3, Delhi wherein she besides broadly reiterating the earlier allegations,   stated   that   she   was   beaten   by   her   husband   and mother­in­law on 29.07.2013 with legs since she was unable to wash   clothes   and   utensils   as   she   was   not   feeling   well   due   to pregnancy. She also stated that they were not financially helping her to recharge her phone so that she can talk to her parents.  She has also stated in the  later part of the said complaint that her husband hit her on stomach with fist and leg.

7. The third complaint dated 18.03.2014 was made to ACP,   CAW   Cell,   Sector­3,   Rohini,   Delhi   wherein   complainant stated   that   her   earlier   complaint   dated   05.08.2013   was withdrawn on 03.01.2014 under the pressure of her in­laws and she  requested for  reopening the  said earlier  complaint.   In the said complaint dated 18.03.2014, she has stated that her husband Shasak  Jain, mother­in­law Rekha  Jain  and Sister­in­law Neetu Jain  (Jethani) used to harass and beat her since  her  marriage, which complainant tolerated so that her matrimonial life may not get spoiled. It is further mentioned in the said complaint that all these people are very greedy and from time to time for fulfillment of their demands, had beaten her and asked her to bring more and more dowry from her parents home, which was fulfilled by the complainant from time to time.  It is further mentioned that they are so aggressive that on small issues they start fighting with CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 the complainant, as a result of which her health deteriorated and she   started  suffering  from   high  blood  pressure  and  depression. She   has   also   stated   that   on   03.07.2011   on   the   occasion   of engagement ceremony, her mother­in­law demanded Rs.30,000/­ from her father for gifting Scooty to the complainant so that she can maintain good image in the society and amongst relatives.  It is   further   mentioned   that   on   15.11.2011,   mother­in­law   and sister­in­law   took   the   entire   jewellery   (including   of   gold   and silver)   of   the   complainant   and   kept   the   same   with   themselves stating   that   they   will   keep   it   in   safe   custody.   It   is   further mentioned   that   jewellery   worth   Rs.7   lakhs   is   still   with   her mother­in­law.   It is also alleged that on 15.09.2012, mother­in­ law demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for opening clinic for her son on   rent   and   on   refusal,   abused   the   complainant.   It   is   further mentioned that on 01.06.2013, her husband quarreled with her for preparing food late as the complainant had gone to a dentist and   her   husband   stated   angrily   that   in   case   she   did   not   bring Rs.20,000/­, there is no need for her to come home, whereupon complainant went to her father’s place and informed him. Then her father arranged Rs.20,000/­. It is further mentioned that on 13.07.2013, they took her to the engagement ceremony of cousin sister of her husband, inspite of fact that the complainant was not well, as a result of which the complainant’s health deteriorated and kept on deteriorating till 29.07.2013 as her in­laws did not provide her medical treatment.   She has further stated that she used to go to doctor herself as she was six weeks pregnant and she informed her parents in this regard on 30.07.2013. When her brother Rahul, Cousin brother Gaurav, her sister’s husband Sudhir CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 and   his   mother   came,   on   seeing   them,   the   mother­in­law   and husband started quarreling and blaming the complainant.   It is further mentioned that on the asking of his mother, her husband had beaten her in the presence of her family members. Mother­in­ law stated in loud voice that they do not want child. They abused the mother and father of complainant and threw them out of their home and since then complainant is residing at her parents place.

8. The   relevant   part   of   the   impugned   order   is   reproduced below:­ “At the outset reference is made to case laws ‘Bhushan Kumar v. NCT of Delhi SLP (Crl.) No. 9958 of 2010 and Kanti Shah v. State (2000)  ISCC 722’ wherein it is held that at the time of framing of charge no reasons are required to be recorded in the writing by the Magistrate Court.

Prima   facie   from   the   statements   and documents   on   record   charge   for   the   offence   u/s 498A/323/506/34 IPC is made out against the accused Shasak   Jain   and   charge   for   the   offence   u/s 498A/323/406/34   IPC   is   made   out   against   accused Rekha Jain and Neetu Jain. Charge is accordingly framed to which the accused persons plead not guilty and claims trial.”

9. Revisionists   are   relying   upon   the   following judgments:­

(i) “Onkar   Nath   Mishra   &   Ors   Vs.   State   (NCT   of CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 Delhi) & Anr on 14 December, 2007”, 2008 II AD (SC) 398

(ii) “Krishan   Jeet   Singh   Vs   State   of   Haryana”,   11 (2003) DMC 127 (P& H)

(iii) “Poonam   Singh   Vs   State”,   CRL.   M.C.

No.1604/2007 & Crl. M.A. No. 5582/2007.

(iv) “Sonu   Gupta   Vs   Deepak   Gupta   &   Ors.   On   11 February, 2015”, Criminal Appeal Nos. 285­287 of 2015.

(v) “State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. On 3 March, 1977”, 1977 AIR 1489, 1977 SCR (3) 113

(vi) “State   of   Haryana   and   Ors   vs   Ch.   Bhajan   Lal   and  Ors  on   21  November,   1990”,   1992  AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259

(vii) “Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012”, Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 of SLP (Crl.) No. 10547/2010.

(viii) “Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr on   13   August,   2010”,   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1512   of   2010 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4684 of 2009)

(ix) “V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat”, 1994 AIR 710, 1994 SCC (1) 337.

(x) “Savitri   Devi   Vs  Ramesh   Chand   and   Ors.   On   19 May, 2003”,2003 CriL.J 2759, 104( 2003) DLT 824, II (2003) DMC 328, 2003 (69) DRJ 6.

(xi) “Pooja   Sharma   vs.   Vinod   Sharma   &   Ors.   On   22 March, 2014”, Cr. No.52/13.

(xii) “Surajmal Barithia vs. State of West Bengal”, 11 (2003) DMC 546 (Cal) (DB).

(xiii) “Smt.   Neera   Singh   Vs.   State   (Govt.   of   NCT   of CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 Delhi) & Others”, Criminal MC No. 7262/2006.

(xiv) “Amar   Pal   Singh   Chadha   @   Sonu   Vs.   State   & Another”, 145 (2007) DLT 301

(xv) “Neeraj Gupta & Others Vs. CBI”, 2007 (3) RCR Criminal 872.

(xvi)            In S. Hanumanta Rao v. s. Ramani.
(xvii)           "Narayan   Ganesh   Dastane   vs   Sucheta   Narayan

Dastane on 19 March, 1975″, 1975 AIR 1534, 1975 SCR (3)

967. (xviii) “Manju Ram Kalita vs State of Assam on 29 May, 2009”, Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2003.

(xix) “Neelu   Chopra   &   Anr   vs   Bharti   on   7   October, 2009”, Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003.

(xx) “Lawrence vs State of Kerala on 21 June, 2002”, 2002 CriLJ 3458.

(xxi) “Rajesh Sharma vs The State of Uttar Pardesh on 27  July,  2017”,  Criminal  Appeal  No.   1265  of  2017  [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2013 of 2017]. (xxii) “Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India and Ors. On 19 July, 2005”, writ petition (civil) 141 of 2005. (xxiii) “Shambhu Nath Singh vs. State & Another on 30 April, 2014”, CR No. 152/13.

(xxiv) “Appasaheb and Anr vs State of Maharashtra on 5th January, 2007”, Appeal (Crl.) 1613 of 2005. (xxv) “Vipin Jaiswal (A­I) vs State of A.P. Rep. By…on 13 March, 2013”, Criminal Appeal No.(s) 1431 of 2007. (xxvi) “Mohd.   Hoshan   v   State   of   A.P.”,   (2002)   7   SCC

414. CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 (xxvii) “Girdhar   Shankar   Tawade   v.   State   of Maharashtra”, AIR2002 SC 2078.

(xxviii) “In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration)”, AIR 2000 SC 3559.

(xxix) “Sh.Om Prakash vs(1) State (NCT of Delhi) on 24 April,2015” CR No.31/14, FIR No.281/2011, PS Burari. (xxx) “Smt.   Deepa   Bajwa   vs   State   and   Ors.   On   1 November, 2004”, 115(2004) DLT 202, 2004(77) DRJ 725. (xxxi) “Ajay Mitra vs State of M.P. & Ors. On 28 January, 2003”, Case No. Appeal (Crl.) 129 of 2003.

(xxxii) “Majhar @ Papoo”, 2002(3) Crimes 90, 96 (2002) DLT 566, I (2002) DMC 510, 2002(1) JCC 515.

(xxxiii) “Ramgopal & Anr Vs State of M.P. & Anr. On 30 July,   2010”,   Special   Leave   Petition   (Crl.)No.   6494   of   2010 (CRL MP. No. 14745/2010) (2010) 13 SCC 540.

10. Ld.   Counsel   for   the   respondent   no.2/   complainant has   relied   upon   the   following   judgments,   without   providing copies thereof :­

(i) “Haunsabai   vs.   Balkrishna   Krishna   Badigar”, Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 135 of 1979 decided on 13.02.1980.

(ii) “Bhupender   Kumar   Vs   State”,   Criminal   Revision Appeal No. 234 of 1974 decided on 09.01.1975.

(iii)            1981 Cri L J (111).
(iv)             "Arun   Bhandari   vs.   State   of   UP",   SLP   Cri   No.
2089/2013.
(v)              "Harvinder Singh vs State", Cri Misc 2877/2014.
(vi)             "Anju Chaudhary vs State of UP", SLP 9475/2008.

CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16                                  22 of 21

11. Some of the aforesaid judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for   respondent   no.   2/complainant   to   argue   that   the   revision petition is not maintainable as per section 397 Cr.P.C since the order framing of charge is an interlocutory order, is of no help to him as from law laid down in catena of subsequent judgments which   are   still   valid,   it   has   been   well   settled   that   the   order framing of charge is not an interlocutory order and hence revision petition against the same would be maintainable.

In “K K Patel & Anr. v State of Gujarat & Anr.”, 2002(6)   SCC   195,  the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   inter   alia observed   that   the   feasible   test   is   whether   by   upholding   the objections raised by a party, would it result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections, would not merely be interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the code.   In the present case, if the objection raised by the revisionists   are   upheld   by   this   court,   the   entire   prosection proceedings would get terminated.  Hence, as per said standard, order framing of charge is revisable.

In   the   case   of  “Madhu   Limaya   v   The   State   of Maharashtra”, (1977) 4 SCC 551,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter   alia   observed   that   on   the   one   hand,   the   legislature   kept intact the revisional power of the high court, and on the other, it put   a   bar   on   the   exercise   of   that   power   in   relation   to   any interlocutory order. In such a situation it appears to us that the real intention of the legislature was not to equate the expression “interlocutory order”, as invariably being converse of the words “final order.” There may be an order passed during course of a CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 proceedings   which   may   not   be   final   in   the   sense   noticed   in Kuppuswami’s case (supra), but, yet it may not be interlocutory order­ pure or simple. Some kinds of order fall in between the two.   By the rule of harmonious construction, we think that the bar in Sub section (2) of section 397 is not meant to be directed to such kinds of intermediate orders.

Thus   on   the   aforesaid   principle   also   the   impugned order   of   framing   of   charge,   cannot   be   termed   as   interlocutory order.

In “Amarnath v State of Haryana & Anr.” (1977) 4 SCC 137, Hon’ble Supreme Court,  inter alia observed that any order   which   substantially   affects   the   rights   of   the   accused   or decide   certain   rights   of   the   parties   cannot   be   said   to   be   an interlocutory   order   so   as   to   bar   a   revision   to   the   High   Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which form the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of 1973 Code.

Relying   on   the   aforesaid   principle   also,   since   the order framing of charge substantially affects the rights of accused and in case the plea of the accused is accepted in revision against order   of   framing   of   charge,   it   would   finally   culminate   the proceedings, thus the order of framing of charge cannot be said to be interlocutory.

In the case of  Puneet Sabharwal v Central Bureau of Investigation in Criminal Revision Petition No. 293/2006, by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held in para 10 as under:­ “if   the   interpretation   given   by   Hon’ble   Supreme Court   to   an   interlocutory   order   in   the   case   of   Madhu CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 Limaya is applied, an order framing charge or directing framing of charge cannot be said to be an interlocutory order…….”

12. On perusal of the first complaint dated 04.08.2013 of the complainant, it is clear that there is no specific allegation of the harassment or beating of the complainant relating to cruelty towards her as defined in section 498A IPC i.e. for fulfillment of dowry demand or to force the complainant to commit suicide.

13. In the case of  Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs State & Anr. [ 2007 [4] JCC 3074], it was held in paras 10­16 which are reproduced below:­

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 related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty.

CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 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 have   nexus   with   the   demand   of   dowry   and   if   this   is CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 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   pre­ condition 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.

Thus   applying   the   said   judgment   to   the   first complaint dated 04.08.2013 of complainant, it is clear that the general allegations of harassment and beating of the complainant by   her   husband   and   mother­in­law,   have   no   nexus   with   the demand of dowry and it cannot be said that the alleged beatings and harassment were to fulfill illegal dowry demands or to force the complainant to commit suicide.

14 Five   days   after   leaving   her   matrimonial   home   on 30.07.2013, the complainant had made first complaint to SHO, PS   Begum   Pur   on   04.08.2013   regarding   domestic   violence, CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 dowry,   physical   and   mental   harassment   by   her   husband   and mother­in­law. As discussed above from the contents of the said detailed complaint, no ingredients of any of the offence u/s 498A, 406 or 506 IPC is made out.   Even from contents of her second complaint dated 05.08.2013 to ACP, CAW cell, no such offences are   made   out.     It   is   not   the   case   of   the   complainant   that   the complaint dated 04.08.2013 was with respect to incident dated 30.07.2013 only, when she was turned out of matrimonial home. Rather from the nomenclature as well as contents, it is clear that the said complaint was pertaining to all incidents of harassment and cruelty towards the complainant which occurred during her stay at matrimonial home. It would have been understandable, if the complainant would have kept her allegations in the complaint dated   04.08.2013   to   SHO,   PS   Begum   Pur   pertaining   to   the incident dated 30.07.2013 only. However it is not so. Rather in the   said   complaint,   the   complainant   has   referred   to   all   the incidents of her alleged harassment by her husband and mother­ in­law from the date of her marriage till she left the matrimonial home   on   30.07.2013.   Nowhere   in   the   said   complaint   dated 04.08.2013, the  complainant had stated that other incidents of cruelty towards her by in­laws, shall be disclosed subsequently. Even   if   for   arguments   sake   it   is   assumed   that   the   second complaint   dated   05.08.2013   made   to   CAW   Cell   (specialized conciliatory body as per law) was in real sense the first complaint regarding cruelty towards the complainant by her husband and mother­in­law   relating   to   dowry   demand,   still   from   the ingredients   of   the   said   complaint   dated   05.08.2013   also,   no cruelty relating to dowry demand as envisaged u/s 498A IPC or CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 which   may   have   forced   the   complainant   to   commit   suicide,   is prima facie made out.

 Thus from the initial two complaints dated 04.08.2013 and 05.08.2013 of the complainant, no offence u/s 498A, 406 IPC or 506 IPC is made out. In such circumstances her third complaint dated 18.03.2014 made after considerable lapse of time of more than   7   months   of   the   earlier   two   complaints,   incorporating additional   allegations   relating   to   her   harassment   pertaining   to dowry demand, cannot be considered for the purpose of deciding the   question   of   charge.   I   am   fortified   in   this   regard   by   the judgment in the case of “Smt. Deepa Bajwa Vs State & Ors.”, 115(14)   Delhi   Law   Times   202,  wherein   it   was  held   that   first version   as   disclosed   in   the   complaint   is   always   important   for adjudicating   as   to   whether   the   accused   has   committed   or   not committed   an   offence   and   if   the   complaint   lacks   essential ingredients,   lacuna   or   deficiency,   same   cannot   be   filled   by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement and effort on the part of police to supply deficiency and cover up a lacuna   of   complaint   was   totally   unwarranted   and   an   abuse   of process of law.  Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case, in my opinion much credence cannot be given to new dowry harassment allegations of the complainant made in her complaint dated 18.03.2014 or in her subsequent supplementary statement u/s   161   Cr.P.C   dated   23.06.2014.   I   also   find   force   in   the arguments of revisionists in view of some of the judgments cited by   them   on   the   said   aspect.  Even   in   the   complaint   dated 18.03.2014,   complainant   has   requested   for   revival   of   her complaint dated 05.08.2013. Thus even as per complainant, the CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 complaint dated 18.03.2014 was to revive the  complaint dated 05.08.2013. As already discussed no offence u/s 498A, 406 IPC or 506   IPC   is   made   out   from   the   allegations   contained   in   the complaint dated 05.08.2013.

15. Even as per complainant, she was the only one who was the eye witness to her alleged harassment and beating etc. Statements   u/s   161   Cr.P.C   of   other   two   material   witnesses namely   Sub.   Maj.   Hari   Chand   (father)   and   Darshana   Devi (mother)   of   the   complainant   regarding   alleged   incidents,   are hearsay and will not be admissible in evidence. Once from her initial aforesaid two complaints, no offence u/s 498A, 406 IPC or 506 IPC is made out against any of the revisionist, therefore there is no other material on record on the basis of which it can be said that there is sufficient material against the revisionist or that a prima   facie   case   exists   or   grave   suspicion   exists   against   the revisionists   for   commission   of   said   offences.   It   is   pertinent   to mention   that   revisionist   Neetu   Jain   [in   CR   No.53/16   (New No.49934/16)], has not been even named in any of the initial two   complaints.   There   is   no   allegation   against   Neetu   Jain   for causing   simple   hurt   to   complainant   in   any   of   the   two   initial complaints.   There   is   no   MLC   of   the   complainant   on   record regarding any of her alleged beatings or torture. Admittedly the complainant   had   not   made   any   complaint   to   any   authority including police regarding her alleged harassment or torture prior to   leaving   her   matrimonial   home.   Nowhere   in   the   initial   two complaints,   the   complainant   has   alleged   that   the revisionist/husband Shasak Jain had extended any threat to kill CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21 her, as a result of which any alarm was caused to her. Thus no offence u/s 506 IPC is made out against the revisionist Shasak Jain. In none of the initial two complaints the complainant had alleged   that   she   had   entrusted   her  istridhan  articles   including gold jewellery to revisionist Rekha Jain and Neetu Jain.  Rather in the third complaint only she has stated so and in the last she has stated that the said jewellery is with her mother­in­law now. As already discussed above, third complaint in this regard cannot be looked into as the same appears to be improvement. Thus even if the allegations of the complainant in the initial two complaints are taken on face value, there is not even a remote possibility of conviction of the husband for the offence u/s 498A/34 IPC and u/s 506 IPC and of cousin sister­in­law Neetu Jain and mother­in­ law   Rekha   Jain   for   the   offences   u/s   498A/406/34   IPC.     Thus prima facie no offences u/s 498A/34 and 506 IPC are made out against   Shasak   Jain   and   no   offences   u/s   498A/406/34   IPC   is made   against   Rekha   Jain   and   Neetu   Jain.   However   from   the allegations in the first complaint, prima facie offence u/s 323/34IPC is made out against the revisionists Shasak Jain and Rekha Jain, since no MLC is required for proving the offence u/s 323 IPC.

16. Since vide impugned order charge for the offence u/s 323/34   was   also   framed   against   Shasak   Jain   and   Rekha   Jain therefore the trial shall be conducted against them qua the said charges whereas remaining charges qua the  revisionists  are  set aside. The ld. Trial court may re­frame the charge u/s 323/34 IPC against accused Shasak Jain and Rekha Jain, if it so desires.

CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21

17. The revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.

18. One copy each of the signed order be kept in all the three revision petitions. Copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent back to ld. Trial Court for further proceedings on 20.09.2017.

19. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the Open Court  (Ashutosh Kumar) on 12.09.2017 Special Judge­02 (P.C. ACT), CBI                              Distt. N/W, Rohini Courts, Delhi/R CR Nos: 49933/16, 49934/16 & 49935/16 22 of 21

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