* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1070/2017
+ CRL.REV.P. 192/2017
ANJUMNISSA ….. Petitioner
STATE ORS ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arshdeep Singh with Mr. Hitesh
For the Respondents : Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for State.
Mr. Nikas Sharma, Advocate for respondent
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.C. 1070/2017 CRL.REV.P. 192/2017, Crl.M.A.4475-
1. Reply filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is taken on record.
2. By these petitions, the petitioner impugns Order On Charge
dated 03.11.2015, passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate
discharging Mohd. Asif (Brother-in-law) of the commission of
offence punishable under Section 498-A/406 IPC. Petitioner is further
CRL.M.C. 1070/2017 Page 1 of 5
aggrieved by order dated 03.12.2016 of the Revisional Court
discharging the other accused Mohd. Harun (Father-in-law), Begum
Khusmida (Mother-in-law) and Mohd. Hasim (Husband) of the
offence punishable under Section 498-A/406 IPC.
3. The impugned Order On Charge dated 03.11.2015 discharges
Mohd. Asif on the premise that nowhere it is stated that he had
demanded dowry specifically or he was entrusted with istreedhan
4. The impugned Order dated 03.12.2016 of the Revisional Court
discharges Mohd. Harun (Father-in-law), Begum Khusmida (Mother-
in-law) and Mohd. Hasim (Husband) on the premise that there are no
specific allegations to show as to in what way the accused persons
used to harass or commit cruelty upon the petitioner and there was
nothing on record to prima facie show that the petitioner had been
coerced by the accused persons to meet their unlawful demands of
5. The Revisional Court was of the view that the mere demand of
dowry by itself is not cruelty. For this observation, reliance was
placed on the decision of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal
Ors. vs. State Anr.: 2008 II AD (Delhi) 586. Further, it has been
held that there is no specific allegation as to entrustment of istreedhan
articles to the accused persons and in the absence of any specific
allegations as to entrustment of istreedhan articles, no prima facie
case under Section 406 IPC was held to be made out. Accordingly,
CRL.M.C. 1070/2017 Page 2 of 5
the above said accused were discharged.
6. At the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie
consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. The Court does not have to, at that stage, appreciate the
probative value of the material or the evidence to conclude whether
the evidence is sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
7. In the present case, in the FIR, it is contended that the petitioner
was married to Mohd. Hasim on 26.04.2009. It was agreed that the
vidaai would take place after one year. When the period of one year
elapsed and the petitioner’s father approached the respondents for the
purpose of viddai, demand for money was made. It is contended that
the accused demanded Rs.21 lakhs in cash and property worth
approximately Rs.30 lakhs. It is specifically averred that the demand
was made on 23.03.2010 and, on 24.03.2010, the accused Harun
(Father-in-law), Begum Khusmida (Mother-in-law), Mohd. Hasim
(Husband) and the accused Asif (Brother-in-law) specifically made a
demand and stated that unless the demand was met, they would not
permit the Rukhsati/Vidaai and would get Mohd. Hasim married
8. In the statements of various witnesses inter alia, the wife and
her father, recorded under section 161 CrPC, the allegations of the
FIR have been reiterated.
9. Section 161 statement of Mohd. Iqbal (father of the girl)
CRL.M.C. 1070/2017 Page 3 of 5
specifically enumerates the number of articles including gold
jewellery, silver articles, clothes, motorcycle and cash alongwith other
household gift items inter alia TV Fridge, Sofa, given to the accused
persons. The statement specifically names the accused persons.
10. The findings of the Trial Court that there are no allegations
against Mohd. Asif are not substantiated in view of the allegations in
the FIR as well the statements recorded under 161 CrPC. Further, the
findings of the Revisional Court that there is nothing on record to
show that the petitioner was coerced to meet their unlawful demand of
dowry, is clearly not substantiated. The allegation that the accused
refused to perform the Rukhsati/Vidaai ceremony unless the demands
of dowry were met would amount to harassment. A married woman if
told that she would not be taken to her matrimonial house unless she
meets the demand of dowry would suffer cruelty, as required under
Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC. Further, section 161 Statement
of Mohd. Iqbal specifically refers to certain articles comprising of
gold jewellery, motorcycle, household items and cash being given to
the accused persons.
11. Prima facie, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused persons under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC.
12. In view of the above, the impugned Order On Charge dated
03.11.2015 of the Trial Court and impugned Order dated 03.12.2016
of the Revisional Court are not sustainable and are accordingly set
CRL.M.C. 1070/2017 Page 4 of 5
13. List the matter before the Trial Court for framing of charge on
14. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the allegations of the complainant or the defence of the
accused. The accused are, accordingly, directed to appear before the
Trial Court on 15.02.2018.
15. Keeping in view the facts that the FIR was registered as far
back as in the year 2010 and nearly 8 years have elapsed, the Trial
Court is directed to expedite the trial and an endeavour shall be made
to conclude the same within a period of 9 months from today.
16. The Trial Court record be transmitted back to the Trial Court
17. The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
18. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 30, 2018/st
CRL.M.C. 1070/2017 Page 5 of 5