SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Davender Singh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 17 July, 2018

$~31 to 33 (common order)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 577/2016

DAVENDER SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Advocate

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State
SI Kartar Singh, PS Bindapur
Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate for R2
+ CRL.M.C. 1924/2016

ANU PRABHA SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Advocate

versus

THE STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI ANR…… Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State
SI Kartar Singh, PS Bindapur
Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate for R2

+ CRL.M.C. 3020/2016

PRABHA SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Advocate

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State
SI Kartar Singh, PS Bindapur
Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate for R2

Crl. M.C.577/2016, 1924/2016 3030/2016 Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

ORDER (ORAL)

1. First Information Report No.229/2008 of Police Station
Bindapur was lodged at the instance of Usha Singh, wife of Rishant
Singh. The petitioners herein are the father, mother and sister of the
said Rishant Singh. On the conclusion of investigation into the said
FIR, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate which took cognizance and summoned the said Rishant
Singh and the petitioners herein. The question on charge came up
before the Metropolitan Magistrate and, after hearing the parties,
order was passed on 04.04.2015 by the said court holding that prima
facie, a case for charge to be framed was made out only against
Rishant Singh, Prabha Singh and Anu Prabha Singh that too only
under Seciton 498-A IPC, consequently, discharging the other
accused Devender Singh and the said accused persons for the
accusation for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The State
challenged the said order by Criminal Revision Petition No.58/2015
to oppose the discharge of the petitioners and Rishant Singh under
Section 406 IPC, while petitioner Prabha Singh and Anu Prabha
Singh challenged the said very order framing charge under Section
498A IPC, by Criminal Revision No.54/2015. The said revision
petitions were heard by the learned Sessions Judge and decided by
common order dated 23.09.2015.

Crl. M.C.577/2016, 1924/2016 3030/2016 Page 2 of 5

2. The revisional court, upon re-appraisal of the evidence that
has been presented before the trial court, found case made out for
putting the petitioners herein on charge. It found charge was made
out against Rishant Singh and Prabha Singh for offence punishable
under Section 406 IPC and against all the accused for offences
punishable under Sections 498A/406 IPC. It is the said view and the
directions passed in the said order dated 23.09.2015 which are
assailed by the petition at hand under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. The relevant para of the impugned order dated 23.09.2015
may be quoted thus:-

“12. In the present case from the bare reading of the
complaint lodged by the complainant, which is the basis
of the FIR No.229/08, registered with PS Bindapur and
her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., I am of the
opinion that prima facie case is made out u/s. 498A IPC
against Rishant Singh, the husband; Devinder Singh,
father-in-law; Prabha Singh, mother-in-law and Anu
Prabha Singh, sister-in-law as there are specific
allegations against them that they demanded dowry
from the complainant and on account of non-fulfillment
of their demand she was treated with mental as well as
physical cruelty. So far the offence u/s. 406 IPC is
concerned there are specific allegations in the statement
u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. dated 14.09.08 of the complainant that
here jewellery is with her mother in law and she had
refused to return the same despite her demand, that her
father in law who was given Rs.2 lakhs at the time of her
marriage through a mediator also on demand by the
complainant refused to return the same. Similarly, the
husband of the complainant who was possessing her

Crl. M.C.577/2016, 1924/2016 3030/2016 Page 3 of 5
stridhan i.e. motorcycle, gold chain, gold ring, watch
and clothes of the complainant refused to return the
same on demand by the complainant. Hence, prima
facie offence u/s. 406 IPC is made out against all these
three accused So far, Anu Prabha Singh, the sister in
law of the complainant is concerned, there is no
evidence that she was entrusted with stridhan of the
complainant or had refused to return the same. In view
of the above discussion the impugned order of the trial
court dated 04.04.15, whereby charge u/s. 498A IPC
was framed against the husband Rishant Singh, mother
in law Prabha Singh and sister in law Anu Prabha
Singh, is modified to the extent that now charge u/s.
498A/406 IPC is liable to be framed against the father
in law Devinder Singh and charge u/s. 406 IPC is also
liable to be framed against husband Rishant Singh and
mother in law Prabha Singh. With these observations,
both the revision petitions stand disposed of
accordingly.” (emphasis added)

4. The aforementioned observations have been recorded by the
revisional court on the basis of consideration of evidence which was
presented. Even otherwise the question arises as to why there should
be another scrutiny in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. when the matter has already been considered by the
revisional court at the instance of these petitioners.

5. This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of
the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs.
Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001)
8 SCC 522 and Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies

Crl. M.C.577/2016, 1924/2016 3030/2016 Page 4 of 5
Corporation Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 571 and following similar view
taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar
Jain vs. State Anr., ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 in absence of a special
case being made has earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated
03.07.2018) in Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at
hand for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed.

7. The petitions are dismissed.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY 17, 2018
vk

Crl. M.C.577/2016, 1924/2016 3030/2016 Page 5 of 5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation