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  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