IN THE COURT OF SH AJAY GUPTA: ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE-4 (SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS , DELHI
Cr. Revision No. : 8/14
UID NO . 02402R0201292014
In the matter of
Ms. Richa Bharti @ Kajal
D/o Sh. Rakesh Thakur
D/o, Sh. H.N. Singh
W/o Arvind Bharti
R/o, E-134, Gali No. 3,
Subhash Vihar, Bhajanpura,Delhi. ….. Petitioner
1. The State
Govt of NCT Delhi.
2. Sh. Arvind Bharti
S/o Sh Radhey Shyam Bharti
R/o C-5/17, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53 . . . . . Respondents
Final arguments heard :19.05.2015
Date of order :29.05.2015
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by Ms. Geetanjali, Ld. M.M, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi, in the case FIR No. 29/14, titled as State v. Arvind Bharti. Vide aforesaid order Ld.M.M. has discharged the respondent no. 2, Arvind Bharti u/s 498 A IPC.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner(hereinafter to be referred as complainant) filed a complaint and an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the respondent no.2 (hereinafter to be referred as accused) and his other family members mainly on the ground that:-
(i) that she came into the contact of the accused when he used to come to the street to meet his friends and one day he expressed his love and told he wants to marry her. On 09.06.2008 the accused took the complainant to Haridwar there he had sexual intercourse with her and in the next morning they got married. Thereafter, the accused had regular physical relations with the complainant and after that he started avoiding her.
(ii) that when the complainant told the accused that she wants to come and live with him, the respondent denied the existence of marriage. On 06/07/2008, the complainant went to the house of the accused where accused beaten her and left her at her house in an unconscious state and in this regard she lodged a complaint to the police and under pressure accused married the complainant.
(iii) That After marriage, the accused demanded Rs.5 Lacs as dowry and also asked her to get her family house transferred in his name.
(iv) That after marriage complainant resided at the house of the accused for two days where the father and brother of the accused tried to do sexual acts with her and complainant somehow escaped from there. Thereafter, complainant and accused started residing separately in a rented accommodation. The father of the complainant gave the accused financial help of Rs.50,000/- but after some time accused started beating the complainant and demanded more money.
(v) That after about 15 days, the father and brother of the accused came to the rented house where they badly beaten the complainant. Complainant got hurt and went to her parents house about which complainant made a written complaint to the police on 22.08.2008. Complainant also made others complaints to the police on 31.10.08 and 02.11.2008.
(vi) That accused threatened the complainant to withdraw her complaints from police station.
On the basis of her aforesaid allegations, complainant sought registration of FIR against the respondent no. 2 and his father and brother.
3. Ld. MM allowed the application of complainant and on the order of Ld. M.M., the FIR was registered u/s 498-A/406 IPC. After completion of investigation charge was filed under the aforesaid sections only against the respondent no.2 and rest of the two family members were not charge-sheeted for want of evidence.
4. Ld. M.M. took cognizance against the respondent no.2 and discharged vide impugned order discharged the accused from the charges of section 498-A IPC while observing that the complainant has not made any specific allegations against any accused regarding harassment for dowry demand. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, petitioner has filed the present petition mainly on the grounds that:-
(a) That ld. trial court failed to consider that on 07.07.2008, the accused and her other family members subjected the complainant to various cruel acts.
(b) That ld. trial court did not consider that the complainant has no source of income for herself and her four year minor daughter.
(c) that ld. trial court failed to consider that on 24.08.2009, the accused came to the house of the complainant and threatened her of dire consequences in case she fails to withdraw her case and in this regard a written complaint was made to the DCP (North East) on 27.08.2009.
(d) that ld. trial court failed to consider that on the request of accused on 10.07.2009, the complainant went to Chandigarh to reside with the accused. On 12.07.2009, the accused mercilessly beaten the accused and in this regard a call was made to the Chandigarh police. The police had taken the complainant to the multispecialty hospital at Section-16, Chandigarh where her MLC was prepared.
(e) That ld. trial court failed to consider that on dt.09.07.2009, the petitioner went to the house of accused where she was brutally beaten up and in this regard a call at no100 was made and police came at the spot and she was medically examined at GTB Hospital.
(f) That ld. trial court failed to consider that vide order dt.12.03.2010, the accused was directed by ld. MM to monthly pay Rs.3000/- in a Domestic Violence case and accused has only paid Rs.36000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.99000/- the execution petition is pending.
5. I have heard the submissions of ld. counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 2.
6. In the context of the present petition, the provisions of section 498A IPC are required to be considered to see whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the charges of section 498 A IPC are made out against the respondent no. 2/accused. The provisions of section 498 A IPC reads as under:-
Section 498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty: Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation:-For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means:
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) 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.
7. Thus, as per the provisions of section 498A IPC, the husband or any of his relatives would be liable, if the wife/daughter in law is subjected to cruelty as defined in this section. To attract the offence under this section, it must be established that the cruelty or harassment was done with a view to force her to cause bodily injury to herself or to commit suicide or to compel her to fulfill the illegal demands for dowry.
8. In 2007 (4) JCC 3074 titled as Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State and anr., Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that mere demand of property by itself is not a cruelty. The relevant portion of the said case reads as under:-
11. 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. 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.
9. The petitioner has stated that after marriage accused demanded Rs. 5 lacs and transfer of their family house, but there is no whisper that complainant was subject to cruelty on account of said demand. In the case reported as 2009(4) JCC 302 titled as Neelu Chopra & anr. Vs. Bharti Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no case of section 498-A IPC would be made out when the allegations in the complaint are vague. The complaint is silent about how and when the complainant was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand. The allegations which have been leveled regarding dowry demand and harassment are vague as such, are not sufficient for framing of charge against the accused person u/s 498-A IPC.
10. The FIR of the present case was also registered for the offence u/s 406 IPC. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the case reported as 92(2001) DLT 179 titled as Anu Gill vs State that for constituting an offence u/s 406 IPC the following essential elements are required:-
‘To constitute the offence under section 406 IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it, by the complainant; that the accused has dishonestly mis-appropriated or converted the same to his own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant.’
11. In the present case, there are no allegations that complainant had entrusted some property to the accused, thus, there is no question of misappropriation of the same. Thus, no offence u/s 406 IPC is made out against the accused.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this court doesn’t find any infirmity in the order of ld. M.M. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, same is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open Court on 29.05.2015) (Ajay Gupta) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara), KKD Courts,Delhi.