Delhi High Court Jogesh Sehgal & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 24 April, 2012Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No.1622/2008
Date of Decision: 24.04.2012
JOGESH SEHGAL & ORS. ……Petitioners
Through: Mr. B.P. Singh & Mr. A.K.
STATE & ANR. …… Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the
Mr. Rakesh Mukhija, Adv. for
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order of the ld. ASJ dated 29.02.2008 in the Criminal Revision Petition No.82/2007, whereby the order of MM framing charges under Sections 498A/406 IPC was upheld.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with respondent no.2 Preeti Sehgal on 06.12.1996. A complaint was lodged by respondent no.2 on 07.02.2000 with CAW Cell alleging demand of dowry, harassment, torture, mental and physical torture against the petitioners. Consequently the case was registered by Crl.M.C.No1622/2008 Page 1 of 5 the police and after completion of investigation and conclusion of arguments on charge, the MM passed order for framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 498A/406 IPC.
3. The impugned orders are assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the complaint filed by respondent no.2 is baseless and is only for the purpose of harassing the petitioners. It has been further submitted that the petitioners no. 2 to 5 (the parents, brother and sister-in-law of petitioner No.1) are not liable to be prosecuted at all as they did not reside with petitioner no.1 and the complainant after their marriage and are being falsely dragged into the case by the complainant. It has been further averred that the complaint has been lodged after 4 years of the marriage and is liable to be quashed. It has also been submitted that the trial Court of Delhi has no jurisdiction to try the case as the alleged acts have been committed at Sonepat and not Delhi.
4. Per contra, the learned APP for the State stated that the grounds taken up by the counsel for the petitioners are the same which were taken up before the ld. ASJ in criminal revision petition and the present petition is a second revision in the guise of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the impugned orders.
6. Though the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, but having gone through the averments of the petition, it would be seen that it is nothing but a second revision that has been filed against the order of learned MM. It is settled law that the inherent powers of this
Crl.M.C.No1622/2008 Page 2 of 5 court could not be exercised unless the case falls within the ambit of Section 482 Cr.PC. The petitioner filed the first revision against the order of learned MM before t he learned ASJ and having failed there, has chosen to file this second revision petition under the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C. Such a second revision petition is clearly barred under Section 397(3) Cr.PC.
7. However, there are a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court holding the view that it is only in case of serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the court or where mandatory provisions of law were not complied with and where the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction was to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the trial court, that the extra ordinary inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC could be exercised.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 SCC 326 held that “the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and such power shall not be utilized as a substitute for second Revision. Ordinarily, when a Revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to Revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) thereof. However, the High Court can entertain petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the court or when mandatory provisions of law were not complied with and when the High Court feels that the
Crl.M.C.No1622/2008 Page 3 of 5 inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional court.”
9. Nothing could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner suggesting invoking of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. on the parameters as laid down and the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.
10. Even on merits, the petition cannot stand as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners No. 2 to 5 were not residing with the complainant and petitioner No.1 after their marriage and hence, are not liable to be prosecuted, is untenable. There are specific allegations in the complaint against all the petitioners. The relevant para of the complaint avers like this:- “That when the marriage ceremony were in progress, the accused husband of applicant Shri Yogesh Sehgal, her father in law Shri Jagdish Sehgal, her mother in law Smt. Uma Sehgal and brother in law Shri Manoj Sehgal and his wife Ms. Shikha Sehgal, all resident of 111, 8 Marla, Near Model Town, Sonepat, Haryana had asked the mother of the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- in addition to the dowry/presents given to them on the pretext that since all their relatives, friends and nears and dearers could not attend the marriage ceremony therefore they have to arrange a Reception in Mehfil Banquet Hall, Sonepat. The mother of applicant
requested that their demand for Rs.60,000/- for the reception was excessive and not justified but they paid no heed and told the mother of applicant that this is the minimum expectation from their side. The applicant’s mother had to agree unwillingly and paid them
Rs.60,000/- so that the solemn occasion be not spoiled.”
Crl.M.C.No1622/2008 Page 4 of 5
11. In any case, this is a triable issue and cannot be looked into by this court at this stage. Further, the submission that the complaint was filed after four years of the marriage cannot be accepted as the offences that are complained of are continuous in nature and hence the complaint is not barred by limitation. Lastly, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court at Delhi has no jurisdiction to try the case cannot be accepted as the marriage was solemnized at Delhi and the alleged demand for dowry at the time of marriage was made at Delhi.
12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and no such ground could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that would mandate the exercise of the extraordinary power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of setting aside the impugned orders. The petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 24, 2012
Crl.M.C.No1622/2008 Page 5 of 5