* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.07.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3930/2014 Crl.M.A.13460/2014
INDRAWATI ANR. ….. Petitioners
STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Prithvi Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Addl. PP for the State with
SI Manish Kumar, P.S.Vasant Kunj North.
Mr.Sachin Pahwa, Adv. with respondent No. 2.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners impugn order dated 30.06.2012 whereby charge has
been framed against the petitioners under Sections 498A/34 of the
IPC. Petitioners further impugn order dated 24.05.2014 whereby the
Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioners to summon
the records from the Crime Against Women Cell and for supply of
copies thereof to the petitioners.
CRL.M.C. 3930/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. Subject FIR was registered consequent to a complaint given by
respondent No.2. In the complaint respondent No.2 has given several
instances of demand of money, jewellery as well as property being
made against her and her family members. Respondent No.2 has also
given the details of the cruelty which is alleged to have been meted
out to her by the petitioner as well as his family. Complaint was
initially before the Crime Against Women Cell. Thereafter the
complaint was referred to the Police Station Vasant Kunj whereafter a
chargesheet has been filed. After going through the documents
submitted along with the chargesheet, the Trial Court was of the view
that the charges under Section 498A/34 of the IPC ought to be framed
against the petitioners. Accordingly, charges have been framed by the
order dated 30.06.2012 impugned herein.
3. I have perused the records of the case. Respondent No.2 in her
complaint has categorically stated that she was married to the
petitioner on 22.06.2004. Her parents spent approximately Rs.10 lakhs
as per their status and had given several articles and jewellery,
ornaments etc besides household goods and a car. She has further
alleged that the money which she was carrying was taken by her in-
laws and thereafter there were demand of Rs.5 lakhs in cash and one
MIG flat. She has also made allegations of her not being treated
properly and being treated with cruelty. She has also given specific
dates with incidents.
CRL.M.C. 3930/2014 Page 2 of 4
4. Prima facie the allegations levelled raise grave suspicion and I
do not find any infirmity with the order of the Trial Court framing
charges against the petitioners, however, this is without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the parties and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
allegations are false and there are admissions by the complainant that
the allegations in the FIR are false. He relies on the testimony of the
respondent to contend that she left the matrimonial home on
18.01.2005 . He also relies upon some photograph to contend that the
allegations in the FIR are false.
6. I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners. The case of the prosecution is to be tested at trial. The
complainant would have to prove the allegations made by her of
demands of dowry and cruelty being meted out to her. Further,
learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out to the
7. The admission that she left for her parental home on 18.01.2005
does not in any way show that her complaint is false as the dates and
instances given by the complainant are of a period prior to
18.01.2005. In any case, prosecution has to still prove its case. In so
far as photographs are concerned, the Petitioners would have to prove
the same in accordance with law and they would be considered by the
CRL.M.C. 3930/2014 Page 3 of 4
Trial Court, if produced by the petitioners, in accordance with law at
an appropriate stage.
8. Now coming to the order dated 24.05.2014 whereby the
application of the petitioners to summon the records from the Crime
against Women Cell has been dismissed.
9. The learned APP informs that all documents filed along with
the chargesheet have been duly supplied to the petitioners.
10. The Trial Court in the impugned order dated 24.05.2014 has
held that in case there is any evidence or record which the accused
wishes to be produced before the Court, he would have an opportunity
at an appropriate stage to produce the same.
11. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Court. If the
petitioner wishes to produce any evidence he will have an opportunity
to produce the same at the time when he chooses to lead defence
12. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly
13. The Trial Court record be transmitted back to the Trial Court
JULY 24, 2018/rk SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CRL.M.C. 3930/2014 Page 4 of 4