Delhi High Court Dr. Krishan Verma & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 25 May, 2012Author: M. L. Mehta

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 1933/2012

Date of Decision: 25.5.2012

DR. KRISHAN VERMA & ORS. …… Petitioner

Through: Petitioners in person.

Versus

STATE & ORS. …… Respondents

Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Section 482, 483 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking assailing the order dated 12.3.2012 of Special Judge, NDPS whereby the revision petition against the order dated 30.6.2011 of M.M. framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was dismissed.

2. The petitioners were facing prosecution in FIR No. 346/2003, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Adarsh Nagar, which came to be registered at the instance of complainant Anuradha Aggarwal. In addition to the petitioners, there are other co-accused persons namely Krishna Verma, Rohtash Kumar Verma, Ravinder Kumar Verma, Suman Verma and Reetu Verma, who are respectively, the mother-in- Crl.M.C. 1933/2012 Page 1 of 4 law, brothers and sisters in laws of the complainant. Except the petitioners namely Krishan Kumar Verma and Ram Kumar Verma, who are the husband and father-in-law of the complainant, all the other co- accused persons were discharged by the M.M. vide order dated 30.6.2011.

3. The main ground that is taken for assailing the impugned order is that there is no allegations against the petitioners that they committed any cruelty falling within the ambit of Section 498A IPC. In other words, the plea that is raised is that the complaint lacked the basic ingredients of Section 498A IPC against the petitioners and that in the absence of the same, the order of the M.M. framing charges against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC as also the order of the ASJ confirming the same, are erroneous.

4. I have heard the petitioners in person and gone through the FIR along with them. Having gone through the FIR, which came to be registered on the complaint of Anuradha Aggarwal, it would be noticed that there are many specific allegations of demand of dowry as also the resultant harassment and torture of the complainant by the petitioners. She had specifically stated that on 26.4.1998, her father-in-law and husband i.e. the petitioners and others started insulting her with choicest abuses on account of less amount of Tilak ceremony. She alleged that her father-in-law asked her to bring Rs. 50000/- from her parents and that when she expressed her inability, they got annoyed and threatened

Crl.M.C. 1933/2012 Page 2 of 4 her to face consequences and as a result of tension and depression, she could not take her food that night. She further alleged that on 27.4.1998 at about 9.00 p.m., her father-in-law along with mother-in-law again passed taunting and sarcastic remarks which have been quoted verbatim in the complaint. Not ending here, she has levelled more specific allegations against the petitioner father-in-law regarding the incident of 20.5.1998 followed by the incident of 20.2.1999 and many subsequent incidents, all pointing towards the continuous harassment of the complainant by the petitioners. The cruelty does not mean that it would not be completed unless one is physically assaulted and sustains injuries. Cruelty would encompass even the mental as well as the emotional torture and harassment by sarcastic language, conduct, taunting, behaviour and gestures. The complaint is full of various incidents of such harassing and torturing conduct of the petitioners, which would prima facie come within the meaning and ambit of cruelty. All this itself has the basis and germane in the non-fulfilment of the demands of dowry in the shape of articles and cash of the petitioners, from the complainant and her family members.

5. Having noted as above that there are serious allegations of torture and harassment amounting to cruelty within the ambit of Section 498A more particularly as explained in the explanations appended to this Section, the contention of the petitioners as noted above, is untenable.

Crl.M.C. 1933/2012 Page 3 of 4

6. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 it was held as under:

“at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and Judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.”

7. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the ASJ as also that of the M.M. warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 CrPC.

8. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

MAY 25, 2012

akb

Crl.M.C. 1933/2012 Page 4 of 4