IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
In re:- Crl. Revision Petition No. ______ of 2016
In the matter of:-
SMT. SUMITRA & OTHERS .....PETITIONER
Versus
THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION
397 AND 401 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR SETTING
ASIDE/QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
CHARGE DATED 11.08.2016, PASSED BY THE LD.
TRIAL COURT OF MS. BIMLA KUMARI, A.S.J.,
SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI, IN CASE FIR NO.
123/2013, P.S. K.N. KATJU MARG, UNDER SECTION
376/511/498-A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC
THEREBY FRAMING CHARGES AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498-A/406 I.P.C.
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice
Of High Court of Delhi and
His companion Judges.
The petitioners named above most respectfully showeth:-
BRIEF FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE:-
1. That the petitioners are law abiding and peace
loving citizen of India and are permanent residents of
Delhi and residing their respective address given in the
Memo of Parties.
2. That the petitioners are the Jethanis (Sisters-in-law)
and Jeth (Brother-in-law) respectively of the complainant
namely Smt. Manju Mehra, wife of Shri Sanjay Kumar
Ranga. It is pertinent to mention here that admittedly the
Petitioner no 1 and petitioner no 4 are residing separately
far away from the complainant and other family members
since 2007 while FIR is registered in 2013.
3. That the marriage between complainant Smt. Manju
Mehra was solemnized with Sanjay Kumar on 22.04.2002
and the complainant and her husband resided in the
property bearing no D-1/97 Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi from
22.04.2002 to 11.04.2003 and again from Nov 2007 to
June 2012. The complainant lodged a false and frivolous
complaint dated 13.06.2012 in P.S. K.N. Katju Marg,
Delhi vide DD No. 12-B against her father-in-law (Sh.
Kharati Ram Ranga) and mother-in-law (Smt. Chameli
Devi) only.
4. That on 13.08.2012, Sh. Kharati Ram Ranga and
Smt. Chameli Devi sent a complaint against the
complainant and her husband as per the provisions of
Senior Citizen (Protection and Maintenance) Act and the
complainant and her husband was summoned for their
appearance before the Competent Authority for
21.09.2012. The complainant and her husband had
appeared before the Presiding Officer/Authority appointed
under the Senior Citizen (Protection and Maintenance)
Act, but failed to give any satisfactory reply to the
complaint of Sh. Kharati Ram Ranga.
5. That to take revenge from her father-in-law and his
other family members, the complainant lodged a
complaint dated 01.10.2012 against her father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brothers-in-law in Delhi State
commission for Women and simultaneously, the
complainant lodged complaint dated 22.10.2012 in CAW
Cell Outer District, Sector-3 Rohini Delhi, in which she
alleged that she was tortured and harassed by her in-
laws and she and her husband forcibly thrown out from
the matrimonial house and in the said complaints, there
were no allegations against them including the present
petitioners regarding the dowry demand or harassment in
pursuance of dowry demands. The true copy of the
Complaints dated 01.10.2012 and 22.10.2012, with its
True English Translation are annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE ‘P-1’ (Colly.).
6. That out of fear from the conduct of the complainant
and husband, her father in law namely Khairati Ram
Ranga and Smt Chameli Devi had debarred the
complainant and her husband Sanjay Kumar from their
immovable and movable property vide public notice
dated 12.01.2013 in Vir Arjun News paper. Thereafter,
complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.01.2013 seeking
residence right in the property belonging exclusively to
her father in law (accused) stating the same to be the
Matrimonial house. And thereafter, the complainant filed
a complaint under the provisions of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her in-laws,
except her husband.
7. That on 19.02.2013, Delhi Commission for women
closed the complaint of the complainant by observing the
matter between the parties a purely family dispute and
related to the property and enquiry was closed with the
advice to the complainant to avail the appropriate civil
remedy against her father-in-law for the partition of the
property.
8. That the father-in-law of the complainant also made
a complaint dated 26.02.2013 to SHO P.S. K.N. Katju
Marg, Delhi against the threats extended by the
Complainant and her husband.
9. As the complainant’s motive could not be fulfilled in
the CAW cell then by suppressing the fact of pendency of
earlier complaint pending before CAW Cell lodged a fresh
complaint with P.S. Katju Marg, Delhi vide DD No. 93-B
dated 21.03.2013 by improving her allegations contained
in her previous complaints dated 01.10.2012 and
22.10.2012 filed before the Delhi State Commission for
Woman and C.A.W. Cell, Outer Distt. Respectively.
10. The father-in-law of the complainant again made
the complaint dated 26.03.2013 to Additional DCP
Pushpanjali Enclave against the SHO Yashpal Rawat. On
28.03.2013,The complainant and the father-in-law and
brothers-in-law (Jeth), except the petitioner no. 4
appeared before the CAW Cell, where, they were advised
to conciliate the dispute by compromising with each other
and the father-in-law Sh. Kharati Ram Ranga disclosed
that he is ready to compromise the dispute with the
complainant.
11. On 03.04.2016, on the basis of the complaint dated
21.03.2013, lodged by the complainant, a fresh FIR no
123/2013 dated 03.04.2013 under section
498A/376/354/511/34 in P.S. K.N. Katju Marg Outer
District complaint with altogether new and fresh
allegations against the entire in-laws family (except the
husband of the complainant), including the present
petitioners. The true copy of the FIR No. 123/2013, dated
03.04.2013, P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi with its true
English Translation is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE
‘P-2’ (Colly.).
12. That during the pendency of the conciliation
proceedings, the complainant informed the officials of the
CAW Cell that she has got registered a case FIR No.
123/2013 with P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, u.S.
354/498A/511/376/34 IPC against the petitioners and
their other family members. Thereafter, the petitioner no.
4 and other family members were granted anticipatory
bail and accused Sunil Kumar Ranga remained behind
bars for a period of two months appx. before being
released on bail on the basis of the Order passed by this
Hon’ble Court. However, the petitioner no. 1 to 3 were
not arrested in the above noted case and the police after
completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet
against the petitioners and other family members before
the Ld. Court of M.M., Delhi for commencing the trial
against the entire in-laws, including the petitioners for
the offence punishable under Section 376/511/506/498-
A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC. And the Ld. Court of M.M.,
Rohini, Delhi, committed the case to Sessions Court for
trial. The true copy of the Charge Sheet with its true
English Translation is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE
‘P-3’ (Colly.).
13. That at the time of framing of charge, the detailed
written submissions on behalf of petitioners and other co-
accused persons were submitted before the Ld. Trial
Court and after submissions of the written arguments,
the Counsel for the petitioners and the other co-accused
persons as well as Ld. APP for the State, also addressed
their respective oral arguments on the point of charge
before the Ld. Trial Court.
14. That after hearing the arguments, the Ld. Trial
Court in very arbitrary manner passed the impugned
Order dated 11.08.2016, thereby framing the charges
against the petitioners of this petition for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. The
petitioners did not plead their guilt and claimed trial.
15. That the impugned Order dated 11.08.2016, passed
by the Ld. Trial Court is illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary,
against the propositions of the settled law as well as
principles of natural justice, therefore, the same is liable
to be set-aside/quashed, with the gracious orders of this
Hon’ble Court on the following amongst grounds:-
GROUNDS:-
A. BECAUSE, the impugned order is based on
conjectures and surmises and have been passed in very
hasty manner and without following judicial principles
/precedents established by this Hon’ble court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
B. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate
that no prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners for their trial for the offences punishable
under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC.
C. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate
that there is neither specific nor general allegations in
the FIR as well as in charge sheet against the petitioners
with regard to the harassment in pursuance to the dowry
demands or torture and/or misappropriation of the dowry
articles. Moreover even, the name of the petitioner no. 1
is does not find mention even in the FIR and in the
charge sheet, but the police in mechanical manner,
implicated the petitioner no. 1 in the above noted case
and even, during the course of investigation, the police
did not find any accusation against the petitioners, but
the police in routine manner filed the charge sheet
against the petitioners. The Ld.
Trial Court also in mechanical manner and illegal manner
passed the impugned order, thereby framing the charges
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. As such, the impugned Order
is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-
aside/quashed.
D. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court while passing the
impugned Order, failed to appreciate that the
complainant leveled the allegations against the petitioner
no. 4 that on 11.04.2003, when, she preparing food, the
petitioner no. 4 came towards her and there was
exchange of abuse from both sides and the petitioner no.
1 said that I would prefer to go jail after killing her. In
this regard, it is submitted that this is a case of verbal
exchange of abuse and these allegations no offence for
demanding dowry or dowry related harassment to
extending threat of voluntary causing hurt is made out
against the petitioner no. 4 and even, the said allegations
are related to the year 2003 and the same is barred by
limitation under Section 468 of Cr. P.C. It is further
submitted that the Ld. Trial Court miserably failed to
appreciate that the complainant herself in her complaint
categorically stated that the petitioner no. 1 & 4 are living
separately from the other family members (co-accused
persons) since November, 2007 and they are not even in
talking terms with the other family members, therefore,
the framing of charges against the petitioner no. 1 & 4 for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC,
is illegal and against the criminal jurisprudence,
therefore, the impugned order is perverse being illegal,
as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
E. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate
that the complainant did not level any specific or general
allegations against the petitioner no. 2 & 3 for demand
of dowry or dowry related harassment or allegations of
misappropriation of the dowry articles and the entire
complaint of the complainant is devoid of essential
ingredients of any offence, in which the Ld. Trial Court
framed the charge against the petitioners, therefore, the
impugned order of framing charge is liable to be set
aside.
F. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate
that the complainant roped each and every family
members of her matrimonial house except her husband,
who is in collusion and connivance with the complainant,
to extract money and property from his parents under
the garb of the complaint of the complainant which is
apparent from the list of dates and events.
G. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate
that it is settled law that for framing of charge for
conducting the trial there should not only prima facie
case but also sufficient grounds and evidence for putting
them to trial, but in the instant case, there is neither
prima face case nor any sufficient grounds or evidence
against of the petitioners for putting them to trial.
H. BECAUSE, during the course of investigation, the
police investigated the complaints of the complainant,
lodged with the CAW Cell as well as Delhi Commission for
Woman, and the copies of the same were filed along
with the charge sheet along with the copy of the
complaint dated 21.03.2013, on the basis of which the
above case FIR has been registered and during the
course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners
pointed out on the
improvement/embellishments/contradictions in the said
complaints as well as the FIR as all are contradictory to
each other and in view of the Judgement of this Hon’ble
Court delivered in case of Sunil Bansal Vs. The State of
Delhi 2007 [2] JCC 1415, wherein, this Hon’ble Court
held and observed that:-
“……In these circumstances, on exercise of shifting of
materials and particularly keeping in mind the existence
of two contradictory statements, it cannot be said that a
grave suspicion exists about the commission of offence
under Section 304-B by the petitioners. It is well settled
that if two views at charge framing stage exists, based
upon the materials available, the view favouring the
accused is to be preferred. (Ref. Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs.
State of Maharashtra 2002 SCC (Crl.) 310.”.
I. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court miserable failed to
appreciate the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in plethora of cases. It is submitted that Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in case titled “Geeta Mehrotra Vs.
State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741, had held and observed
that:-
“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents
of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which
have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference
of the names of the family members in a matrimonial
dispute without allegation of active involvement in the
matter would not justify taking cognizance against them
overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is
a tendency to involve the entire family members of the
household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a
matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.”
Further, in para 25 of the same judgement, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held and observed that:-
“25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of
caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer
that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating
the complicity of the members of the family named in the
FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but
what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the
FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation
against the accused more so against the co-accused
specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering,
it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to
mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to
undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses
specific allegations which would persuade the court to
take cognizance of the offence alleged against the
relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not
found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of
the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid
down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR
did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court
would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing
the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts
are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of
quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes
whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an
offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the
FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by
involving the entire family of the accused at the instance
of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising
out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic
bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial
surrounding.”
The facts and circumstances of the above cited case is
similar with the instant case.
J. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate
that the allegations against the petitioners leveled by the
complainant if for the sake argument assumed to be
correct then also they does not qualify to be “cruelty”
under section 498A and this Hon’ble Court in case titled
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State 2007 [4] JCC 3074,
held and 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.”
K. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court has framed the
charges without perusing the records and in a mechanical
manner, and as such, the petitioners are entitled for
discharge.
L. That the petitioners craves leave of this Hon’ble
Court to urge extra other ground(s), which available to
them at the time of hearing of the present petition.
16. That the petitioners have not filed any similar
petition earlier before any court of law, including this
Hon’ble Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, till
date.
17. That the present petition is being filed within the
stipulated period of limitation.
PRAYER:-
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is,
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:-
i. Allow the present revision petition of the petitioners,
thereby set-aside/quash the impugned Order dated
11.08.2016, passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Bimla
Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North District,
Rohini, Delhi, in case FIR No. 123/2013, P.S. K.S. Katju
Marg, Delhi, under Section 376/511/506/498-
A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC, thereby framed the charges
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Section 498A/406/34 IPC and pass orders for discharging
the petitioners; and
ii. Any other or further order (s), which this Hon’ble
Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be passed, in favour
of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
Delhi.
Dated:
Petitioner
Through
ADVOCATE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
In re:- Crl. M.C. No. ________ of 2016
In
Crl. Revision Petition No. ______ of 2016
In the matter of:-
SMT. SUMITRA & OTHERS .....PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR. P.C. FOR CALLING THE TRIAL COURT’S RECORD
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the petitioners have filed the accompanying
criminal revision petition under Section 397 and 401 read
with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. against the impugned Order
dated 11.08.2016, passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms.
Bimla Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North
District, Rohini, Delhi, in case FIR No. 123/2013, P.S.
K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi, under Section 376/511/506/498-
A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC, thereby framed the charges
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Section 498A/406/34 IPC, which is pending adjudication
before this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the contents of the accompanying revision
petition may be read as part and parcel to this affidavit
as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of
brevity and to avoid repetition.
3. That the petitioners have got a good prima facie
case in their favour and there is every likelihood of their
succeed in the accompanying revision petition.
4. That for the proper adjudication of the
accompanying revision petition, it would be expedient
that the records of the trial court, pertaining to the above
noted case FIR be called.
PRAYER:-
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is,
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court, may graciously be pleased to:-
i. Call for the records of the Trial Court, pertaining to
the FIR No. 123/2013, P.S. K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi, under
Section 376/511/506/498-A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC,
pending trial in the Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Bimla Kumari,
A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North District, Rohini,
Delhi, which now fixed for 28.11.2016 for perusal and
after perusing the same, allow the revision petition of the
petitioners and discharge the petitioners, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi.
Dated:
Petitioner
Through
ADVOCATE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
In re:- Crl. M.C. No. ________ of 2016
In
Crl. Revision Petition No. ______ of 2016
In the matter of:-
SMT. SUMITRA & OTHERS .....PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR. P.C. FOR STAY OF THE TRIAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the petitioners have filed the accompanying
criminal revision petition under Section 397 and 401 read
with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. against the impugned Order
dated 11.08.2016, passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms.
Bimla Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North
District, Rohini, Delhi, in case FIR No. 123/2013, P.S.
K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi, under Section 376/511/506/498-
A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC, thereby framing the charges
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Section 498A/406/34 IPC, which is pending adjudication
before this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the contents of the accompanying revision
petition may be read as part and parcel to this affidavit
as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of
brevity and to avoid repetition.
3. That the petitioners have got a good prima facie
case in their favour and there is every likelihood of their
success in the accompanying revision petition.
4. That disposal of the accompanying revision petition
may take a considerable time, therefore, the proceedings
before the Ld. Trial Court be stayed, till the final disposal
of the accompanying revision petition.
5. That the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss
and injury if the trial against them is not stayed which
cannot be compensated in terms of money.
6. That balance of convenience is in the favour of the
petitioners and against the respondent.
PRAYER:-
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is,
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court, may graciously be pleased to:-
i. Stay the proceedings of the Trial Court, pertaining
to the FIR No. 123/2013, P.S. K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi,
under Section 376/511/506/498-A/354/313/406/323/34
IPC, pending trial in the Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Bimla
Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North District,
Rohini, Delhi, which now fixed for 28.11.2016, till the
final disposal of the accompanying revision petition, in
the interest of justice.
Delhi.
Dated:
Petitioner
Through
ADVOCATE
