IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE WEST – 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 64/3
IN THE MATTER OF :
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through Public Prosecutor Delhi …………PETITIONER
(1) Sh. Sohan Lal,
S/o Sh. Lambha Ram,R/o Q1/1 Budha Vihar,Phase 1, Delhi.
(2) Smt. Phoolwati
W/o : Sh. Sohan Lal,R/o Q1/1 Budha Vihar,Phase 1, Delhi.
(3) Sh. Surender
S/o Sohan Lal,R/o Q1/1 Budha Vihar,Phase 1, Delhi.
(4) Smt. Kamlesh
W/o Sh. Surender,R/o Q1/1 Budha Vihar,Phase 1, Delhi.
(5) Sh. Bharat Bhushan,
S/o Sh.Sohan Lal,
R/o Q1/1 Budha Vihar,Phase 1, Delhi.
(6) Smt. Reeta,
W/o Sh.Bharat Bhushan
R/o Q1/1 Budha Vihar,Phase 1, Delhi. ……..RESPONDENTS
DATE OF FILING : 25.02.2014
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 04.07.2014
DATE OF ORDER : 04.07.2014
O R D E R
1. This is a revision petition filed by State against the impugned Order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the Ld. MM thereby discharging the respondents u/s 498A/406 IPC.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that FIR No. 482/12 P.S. Uttam Nagar u/s 498A/406 IPC was registered against the respondents and other accused namely Ravinder @ Sonu on the complaint of complainant Ms. Priya. Charge sheet was filed against seven persons including the six respondents. Vide order dt. 01.02.2014, the ld. trial court ordered for framing of charge u/s 498A/406 IPC against accused Ravinder @ Sonu only being husband of the complainant while other accused persons/respondents who are Nana, Nani, Mama (two) and Mami (2) were discharged u/s 498A/406 IPC.
3. By way of present petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Order is liable to be set aside as the said order is bad in law and not sustainable. Further that the trial court has not considered the material facts involved in the case. It is contended that the complaint and other documents available on record contained specific allegations against all the accused persons including the present respondents both u/s 498A 406 IPC.
4. Notice of the petition was sent to respondents and appearance was also made on their behalf.
5. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for respondents and carefully perused the record in the light of submissions made before me.
6. The perusal of impugned order revels that the Ld. Trial court while passing the order dt. 01.02.2014 has discussed the material available on record in detail. The Ld. Trial court while discharging the accused persons other than Ravinder @ Sonu u/s 498A/406 IPC has observed that there were specific allegations against accused Ravinder @ Sonu, who is husband of the complainant while the complainant had not mentioned any single allegations against rest of the accused persons and the only allegation against them was that they used to instigate accused Ravinder @ Sonu. It was also observed that except the bald statement of the complainant qua instigation by the accused other than Ravinder, there was no medical document or any other documentary proof on record. In reference to section 406 IPC also, it was observed that there are contradictions in the case of complainant and in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, the allegations are only against husband of the complainant. Above observations is found to be correct after perusal of record.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra in 2002 SCC (Crl.) 311 observed about the legal provisions at the stage of framing of charge as, ” In exercising powers u/s 227 Cr.P.C, the settled preposition of law is that the judge while considering the question of framing of charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two view are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be justified to discharge the accused and in exercising jurisdiction u/s 227 Cr.P.C, the judge can not act merely as a post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution but has to considered the broad probabilities of case, the total effect of evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial”.
Further Ld. Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India in (2005) 6 SCC 281 observed that, “The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage ads to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a license to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegation can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The 6/8 provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon. If the cry of “Wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears “.
8. If the material available on record, particularly the material collected by the IO during investigation is analyzed in light of provisions of Indian Panel Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the different judgments passed by the superior courts in forms of guidelines for the stage of framing of charge, I reach at a conclusion that the ld. trial court has rightly discharged all the respondents u/s 498A/406 IPC. It is also important to mention that charges can always be altered at some subsequent stage if any such requirement is faced by the trial court.
9. Hence, a careful perusal of the record in general and the impugned Order in particular, it reveals that the petitioner has not been able to show any reasonable ground for interfering with the impugned Order. Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned Order dated 01.02.2014, has taken into consideration all the relevant facts. It is well settled law that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice (ref. AIR 1973 SC 799). The order passed by Ld. MM is a speaking order in which reasons for discharging the respondents have been discussed. If the impugned order is analyzed in light of the scope of section 397 Cr.P.C, no wrong, illegality, impropriety or irregularity is noticed therein.
10.In view of above discussion, the revision petition is found to be devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.
TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this Order. File of the revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL)