SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manmohan And Others vs State Of Haryana on 8 August, 2018

CRR No. 2509 of 2018 1


CRR No. 2509 of 2018
DATE OF DECISION :- August 08, 2018

Manmohan and others …Petitioners


State of Haryana …Respondent


Present:- Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.


This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated

10.7.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.

Briefly stated that facts of the case as per prosecution story are

that complainant Savita had submitted a written complaint to SSP Bhiwani

seeking taking of legal action against her husband Manmohan Singh son of

Prithvi Singh working as Constable in Haryana Police, father-in-law Prithvi

Singh, brother-in-law Jitender, mother-in-law Krishna, sister-in-law Anita

all residents of village Lohari, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani on the

allegations that she was engaged with Manmohan on 22.12.2013 and at that

time, she was studying in Chaudhary Bansi Lal Govt. Girls, Tosham in the

month of January, 2014 Manmohan came to meet her in the college and

stated that he has to talk with her in respect of marriage, then he took her

away to some unknown place in his vehicle and committed rape upon her

1 of 7
13-08-2018 00:50:03 :::
CRR No. 2509 of 2018 2

threatening that in case she disclosed the fact to anybody else, then the

engagement would be broken. Thereafter, Manmohan used to visit her in the

college and take her forcibly to unknown places and had sexually

intercourse with her without her consent under threat to breakdown the

engagement. He did so for four months before their marriage was

solemnized on 11.5.2014. In her complaint, she has levelled allegations of

demand of dowry in the form of Fortuner vehicle, gold bangles etc. from the

complainant. She has levelled allegations of her father-in-law making

advances towards her, further adding that her husband started giving her

contraceptive pills since he did not want children for the present. Prior to

that her husband forcibly got her operated upon her without her consent at

Sangwan Hospital.

According to her she was turned out of the matrimonial home

by her in law’s family on 25.4.2015 for getting demand of dowry fulfilled

and she was threatened that if she came back to matrimonial home without

getting those demand conceded then she would be killed; that the accused

have also committed criminal breach of trust with regard to her

Istridhan/dowry articles; that her parents had convened Panchayat seeking

her rehabilitation in the matrimonial home but her in-laws family remained

adamant stating that till their demands were met, they would not allow her

to return to the matrimonial home.

After registration of the F.I.R. on the basis of this complaint

challan was filed against husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the

complainant for offences under Sections 498A, 434 IPC. The offence under

Section 313, 406, 354 IPC were not added, however, the Illaqa Magistrate

2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-08-2018 00:50:04 :::
CRR No. 2509 of 2018 3

vide order dated 28.10.2015 observed that offence under Section 313 IPC

had been dropped by the investigating officer without any cogent reason

despite the fact that it had come in evidence that the complainant was

pregnant on 2.8.2014 and she was turned out of the matrimonial home on

25.4.2015. The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani got the matter further

investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police under his supervision by

associating the complainant as such supplementary challan was presented

against the accused under Sections 354, 506, 498A IPC read with Section

34 IPC. The investigation agency concluded that offence under Section 313

IPC was not made out.

In the supplementary challan it was not mentioned as to

whether offence under Section 354 IPC was made out or not. Further more

allegation under Section 313 Cr.P.C are only against husband and no other

accused had any concern there with. Further more vide order dated

28.10.2015 further investigation was to be done only with regard to Section

313 IPC as such lower Court had committed a big error while framing

charge; that accused had moved a petition for quashing of the F.I.R. On the

basis of compromise. The Court directed the parties to appear before learned

Magistrate for the purpose of getting their statements recorded. Their

statements were also recorded but when the case came up before this Court

for final decision, the complainant made a statement that she had not been

taken back to matrimonial home as per agreement arrived at between the

parties, as such this Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 24.1.2017;

that when the matter was brought before learned Magistrate, an application

was moved by the complainant party that there has not been fair

3 of 7
13-08-2018 00:50:04 :::
CRR No. 2509 of 2018 4

investigation and report of the investigating officer is biased. Learned

Magistrate came to the conclusion that offence under Section 313 IPC was

mad out as such vide order dated 11.4.2018 committed the case to the Court

of Sessions under Section 313 IPC as well.

That the petitioners are aggrieved by that order and are

challenging this order by way of filing the instant Criminal Revision

Petition. The petitioners have preferred a Revision Petition to the Court of

Sessions at Bhiwani during pendency of which learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhiwani framed charge against the accused persons under Section

354 IPC against Prithvi Singh and under Sections 498A, 506, 313 and 406

IPC against all the accused. It is contended that order vide which charge has

been framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is not speaking one

though order of learned Magistrate dated 11.4.2018 vide which he had

committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 313 IPC is a

detailed order; that learned Magistrate had noted that marriage took place on

11.5.2014 and the complainant lived in matrimonial home upto 25.4.2015

and as per Ultrasound report dated 2.8.2014 from Gauba Ultrasound,

Bhiwani complainant was pregnant with a foetus of 12 weeks and 5 days

and said foetus was healthy with low lying placenta which means that

complainant was pregnant and she was thrown out of matrimonial home on

25.4.2015; that complainant has admitted in her statement under Section

161 Cr.P.C. that at the time of abortion she was at her parental home and it

was natural abortion; that the positive case of the complainant is that

complainant was taken to Sangwan Hospital where without her consent the

abortion was done; that the police had approached the doctor of the said

4 of 7
13-08-2018 00:50:04 :::
CRR No. 2509 of 2018 5

hospital who made statement that on 2.8.2015 the patient had come to him

with a complaint of pain in the abdomen and he gave medicine of abdomen

pain and referred for USG, however, Sunita never came back to him and she

was not admitted in their hospital; that she got her Ultrasound done on

2.8.2014 and there was a healthy foetus of 12 weeks and 5 days but placenta

was low line; that the police had got Medical Board constituted which had

given in opinion as under :-

“In our opinion possibility of spontaneous abortion in this case
cannot be ruled out. Possibility of spontaneous abortion due to
low lying placenta in this case cannot be ruled out. Reasons for
spontaneous abortion may be genetic factor, endocrine factors,
anatomic factors, infections, immunological and others, in
relation to mother/fetus or both.”

According to the revisionist, no charge for offence under

Section 313 IPC is made out. Accordingly, with regard to offences under

Sections 406, 354 IPC there are only vague allegations, therefore, the

present Criminal Revision Petition be accepted, the impugned order passed

by SDJM Tosham directing framing of charge and charge sheet be quashed.

I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners besides

going through the record.

The petitioners are basically aggrieved by the order passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 10.7.2018 directing framing of

charge for offences under Sections 354, 498A, 506, 313 and 406 IPC

against accused. Law is well settled that charge can be framed on the basis

of strong suspicision even.

Section 227 Cr.P.C. provides that if upon consideration of

5 of 7
13-08-2018 00:50:04 :::
CRR No. 2509 of 2018 6

record of the case and the documents submitted there with and after hearing

the submissions of accused and the prosecution in this behalf the Judge

considers that there is not sufficient grounds for proceeding against the

accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

The Court is to see whether there is a case for trial of the accused as per

allegations set up by the prosecutrix. It is not to be seen whether the trial

would end in conviction or acquittal. The only thing to be seen is whether

from the challan and documents attached there with there exist suspicious

circumstances against accused warranting his standing trial. It is subjective

satisfaction of the Judge concerned. If the Judge finds the charge to be

groundless then order of discharge is to be passed supported by reasons

whereas for framing of charge reasons need not be given. The trial Court

has placed reliance upon judgment “Omvati versus State (Delhi)

Administration 2001(2) RCR(Criminal)255” that the detailed circumstances

showing existence of prima facie case against the accused for the offences

in question are not required to be set out while framing charge. Section 228

Cr.P.C. deals with framing of charge. It provides that if after such

consideration of record of the case and hearing the submissions of accused

and the prosecution the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for

presuming that accused had committed an offence then charge against the

accused may be framed. In light of the criteria set out in these provisions the

order framing charge against the accused can certainly stand judicial

scrutiny and taken to be legal and valid.

The main grouse of the petitioner is with regard to framing of

charge under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and report by Medical Board dated

6 of 7
13-08-2018 00:50:04 :::
CRR No. 2509 of 2018 7

1.4.2016 has been referred to giving opinion that possibility of spontaneous

abortion in this case cannot be ruled out. However, these things can be

taken into consideration during the trial and cannot be given undue

importance and weighage at the time of deciding the question whether

formal charge for offence under Section 313 IPC is to be framed or not

when from the statement made by the victim and other oral and

documentary evidence prima facie offence stands disclosed. It may be

mentioned here that petitioners have filed two Revision Petition

simultaneously one before this Court and one before the Court of Sessions,

where the order dated 11.4.2018 committing the case to the Court of

Sessions on account of the fact that Section 313 IPC is exclusively triable

by the Court of Sessions has been challenged. That Revision Petition is

pending. The petitioner could wait for decision of such Revision Petition.

Since they might have redressed their grievances but they have opted to

approach this Court also challenging the order framing charge including that

for offence under Section 313 IPC against them.

I do no find any merit in the Criminal Revision Petition,

therefore, the same stands dismissed.

August 08, 2018

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

7 of 7
13-08-2018 00:50:04 :::

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