Criminal Revision Nos.209/2018 IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Criminal Revision No. : 209/2018 Under Section : 397/399 Cr.P.C FIR No. : 208/2014 PS : Gazipur CNR No. : DLET01-007242-2018 In the matter of :- STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ............PETITIONER VERSUS 1. SH. RAJBIR SINGH S/o. Lt. Shri Birbal Singh, R/o. Vill.-Manakpur, PS-Dehat Kotwali, Distt.-Bulandshahar, U.P. 2. SMT. ASHA DEVI W/o. Sh. Rajbir Singh, R/o. Vill.-Manakpur, PS-Dehat Kotwali, Distt.-Bulandshahar, U.P. .........RESPONDENTS Date of Institution : 16.10.2018 Date of reserving order : 04.01.2019 Date of pronouncement : 05.01.2019 Decision : Petition is dismissed. ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition is directed against order dated 03.08.2018, passed by trial court in the case titled as State v. Manish Pratap & Ors., bearing FIR No.208/2014, under Section 498A/406/34IPC. Vide impugned order dated 03.08.2018, trial court Page 1 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos.209/2018 discharged accused Rajbir Singh and Asha Devi (respondents herein) for aforesaid offences.
BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on the complaint of Smt. Kalpana Raghav and after obtaining approval of Addl. DCP-II (East), FIR under Section 498A/406/34IPC was registered in the present case. Complainant alleged that she was married to Sh. Manish Pratap Singh (son of respondents herein) on 28.05.2006. It was further alleged that after six months of aforesaid marriage, her husband got aborted pregnancy. Complainant resided with her in-laws for five years and she could not have a child despite lapse of seven years after marriage. For such reasons, she was beaten and tortured. All her in-laws i.e. jeth, jethani, mother-in-law, father-in-law, three sisters-in-law and brother- in-law (nandoi) used to get him beaten and used to say that her father had not given dowry. Her husband used to beat her badly. Her jeth, jethani, mother-in-law and father-in-law regularly used to threat her to get her killed and they used to ask her that she should leave the house. After residing five years at Bullandshahar, complainant had been residing in Delhi for last two years with her husband. However, even at this place, her in-laws did not leave her, rather they got her beaten. On 27.05.2013 husband of complainant beat her badly in presence of brother and sisters-in-law of complainant. Her husband did not keep relation of husband wife with her and wanted to marry somewhere else. Her in-laws and her husband demanded money from her. Her in-laws used to beat and used to get her beaten and no one came to save her. They used to close door of the house Page 2 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos.209/2018 and get her beaten. Her in-laws got her consumed pills to abort the pregnancy. She was not got treated, though she could not conceive for last seven years. Her jewelleries and cloths were removed by in- laws and she was not given any expenses. Her in-laws used to blame her and they harassed her by way of making telephonic calls to her through her husband and other persons.
4. Matter proceeded further and vide impugned order trial court, while passing order on the point of charge, discharged respondents herein for alleged offences.
GROUNDS : –
5. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 03.08.2018, State has preferred this revision petition mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That trial court did not apply his judicial mind, which renders the entire impugned order to be void ab initio. ● That during the subsistence of marriage of complainant, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband as well as respondents herein. They also threatened complainant to kill her ● That contents of FIR itself disclosed that there are specific allegations of beating by the accused persons, who were discharged.
● That Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Sunil Kumar Loharta v. Sumeet Ganjiolnao Bachewan & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 5726/2018, stated that the statements recorded during the course Page 3 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos.209/2018 of investigation ought not to have weighed, analyzed and appreciated, while considering the discharge plea. ● That impugned order is arbitrary and against principle of law and passed in hasty manner without appreciating the contention of the prosecution and without weighing the incriminating material against the accused, which was available on the record. ARGUMENTS :-
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State made his submissions on the lines of grounds taken in the petition. He further submitted that in the FIR complainant has made allegations against her in-laws in general, which included respondents herein. He further submitted that there had been allegations of beating and torture, therefore, charges should have been framed against respondents herein as well.
7. On the other hand, ld. counsel for respondents submitted that trial court has rightly passed the impugned order. He further submitted that there had been only vague allegations, which do not make out any prima facie case for any offence.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
8. On perusal of trial court record, first of all, I find that despite directions issued by Head Quarter of Delhi Police so as not to file proceedings of CAW Cell along with chargesheet before the court, such record are still there. Therefore, Trial Court Judge shall ensure that the CAW Cell proceedings are taken out and given back to the SHO, which should be handed over to the CAW Cell officials.
9. On perusal of complaint made by complainant and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, I do find that except for husband, complainant Page 4 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos.209/2018 did not specify her allegations against a particular in-law in concrete manner. She has made vague and general allegations of beating by in-laws without specifying the particular persons as well as time period and reasons for the same.
10.Ld. MM had discharged respondents herein on the grounds that the vague allegations do not make out a prima facie case for offence under Section 498A IPC. One has to appreciate that for this offence there has to be concrete allegation thereby showing that there had been consistent and continuous cruelty inflicted upon the complainant by a particular person in a particular manner, so as to cause grave injury or danger to her life, health or limb. I am in agreement with the observations of ld. MM that in absence of specific allegations of such cruelty against particular person, merely on the basis of a general and vague allegation, charges should not be framed. It was duty of the complainant to specify the instances of cruelty against the particular person and at the same time, it was duty of the IO to elicit such instances against particular person in specific manner. In absence of the same, I do not find any infirmity in the decision taken by ld. MM, hence, revision petition is dismissed.
11.TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. File be consigned to record room as per rules. Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2019.01.05 15:32:26 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 05.01.2019 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 5 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 5 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi