* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.02.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 730/2016
ANJU ….. Petitioner
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ORS. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Kr.Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI Vikram Singh,
Mr.Kishan N.Rana, Adv. for R-2 to 7.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 17.08.2016 whereby the
Revisional Court has accepted the revision petition filed by
respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and set aside the order on charge and
discharged the respondents of the charge under Section 498A/34 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional
Court has erred in not appreciating that there was sufficient material
available on record to substantiate framing of charge under Section
CRL.REV.P 730/2016 Page 1 of 4
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.
2 to 7 submits that apart from bald allegations there is no material to
substantiate framing of charge and even investigation did not reveal
any incriminating material.
4. Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the petitioner.
The marriage between the parties took place in 2005. For the first time
a complaint was made on 22.04.2013 after about eight years of
5. The allegation of the petitioner/complainant is that her husband
used to come late and when she used to enquire about it, he used to
beat her and thereafter when she used to make a complaint to her in-
laws i.e. the respondents they never used to listen to her and also used
to beat her.
6. It is alleged that she was thrown out of the house that was given
by her father to her and threatened that she should not enter the house.
7. Perusal of the FIR and the complaints show that in one breath
the petitioner has named all the family members without any specific
role being ascribed to any one of them. Though there are some
instances mentioned vis-à-vis the brother of the father of the husband
as also the mother-in-law, however, there are no specifics. It is alleged
that once when she had gone to the kitchen on the asking of her
husband’s uncle she smelt a foul smell coming in the kitchen and
CRL.REV.P 730/2016 Page 2 of 4
suspected that there was gas leakage. With regard to the mother-in-
law the allegation is that she had attempted to give her some
disinfectant mixed in the milk. There are no specifics given as to
when these instances allegedly happened or any evidence to
substantiate or corroborate said allegations.
8. The Revisional Court in the impugned order has held as
“18. The case of the complainant, as narrated In the
charge-sheet, is that the accused Dinesh Kumar @ Sonu
used to come to the house In late night and whenever she
enquired from him about the reason for late coming, he
used to beat her. It was further case of the complainant
that whenever she complaint about late coming of her
husband Dinesh Kumar @ Sonu to the petitioners, they
did not listen her and used to beat her. Therefore, the
only allegation against the petitioners was that they did
not listen the grievance of the complainant and they used
to beat her.
19. It is further evident that petitioner No. 4, 5 and 6
are distant relatives of the accused Dinesh Kumar @
Sonu being chacha, chachi and bua. They are residing
20. As observed above, the allegations against the
petitioners are quite general and unspecific. The
complainant has not mentioned any date, time, month or
year when she was subjected to beating by them.”
9. Revisional Court has in my view committed no error in coming
to a conclusion that apart from general and omnibus allegations roping
CRL.REV.P 730/2016 Page 3 of 4
in all the relations, there is no material on record to justify framing of
charge under Section 498A/34 IPC. It may be noted that charge has
already been framed against the husband and he is facing trial.
10. For a charge to be framed, the evidence gathered by the
prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be
grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence.
11. In the present case apart from bald, omnibus allegations without
their being any specifics about date time or place, there is no
incriminating material found by the prosecution even during
investigation to give rise to grave suspicion against the respondents.
12. There is no error or infirmity in the impugned order and as the
same does not warrant any interference in the exercise of powers
under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
13. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
14. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 04, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CRL.REV.P 730/2016 Page 4 of 4