SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mary Manuel vs State & Ors. on 30 October, 2018

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 30th October 2018

+ CRL. REV. P. 487/2016
MARY MANUEL …. Petitioner

Versus

STATE ORS. …. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms.Bhakti Pasrija Sethi, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr.Raghuvinder Verma, APP for the State
Mr.Rajeev Sirohi, Advocate for R-2 R-3

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 01.07.2016, whereby the
Additional Sessions Judge held that prima-facie no charge is made out
against Respondent No.2 and discharged him of all the charges.
However, framed charges against Respondent No.3 for the offences
punishable under section 417/376/313 IPC, while discharging him for
the offences punishable under section 420/403/506/34 IPC.

2. Petitioner filed a complaint on 25.03.2004 alleging that
Respondent no. 2 introduced the Petitioner to Respondent No.3 six
years ago, in the month of December 1998. It is alleged that

CRL. REV. P. 487/2016 Page 1 of 7
Respondent No. 2 represented to her that Respondent No.3 was
unmarried.

3. It is submitted that the friendship between Petitioner and
Respondent No.3 grew and in December 2002 he proposed to marry
her which was accepted by her. It is alleged that Respondent No.3
frequently visited the house of the Petitioner and she was induced into
having sexual relationship with him on the false promise to marry.

4. It is alleged that she became pregnant in March 2003 and
thereafter, requested Respondent No.3 to marry her. However
Respondent No.3 informed her that he was already married having
married one Smt. Nisha Miranda on 29.09.1999.

5. It is alleged that in April 2003, Respondent No.2 .3 informed
petitioner that divorce proceeding between Respondent No.3 and his
wife were pending and the wife of Respondent No.3 had demanded
Rs. 2,50,000 as alimony. It is alleged that she was compelled to
arrange for the said amount as she wanted to marry Respondent No.3.

6. It is also contended that the Petitioner arranged Rs.1,30,000/-
through her friend – Mr. Prem Singh and gave the said amount to
Respondent No.3 on 16.04.2003 which was acknowledged by him as
loan with an interest of Rs 12% per annum. It is alleged that the
balance amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was given to Respondent No.3 in
cash in May 2003. After receiving the said amounts, Respondent No.3
started misbehaving with the Petitioner and physically beat her up on

CRL. REV. P. 487/2016 Page 2 of 7
29.05.2003 as a result she was rushed to the hospital where she had to
get the fetus aborted on 30.05.2003.

7. Subsequently, Petitioner learnt that Respondent No.3 and his
wife got divorced on 30.06.2003 after paying alimony of Rs 2,50,000
as per agreement dated 19.04.2003. It is alleged that Respondent
No.2, on behalf of Respondent No.3, further demanded Rs 20,000 to
pay balance amount towards lawyer’s fee which was also given by the
Petitioner through a blank cheque dated 10.07.2003 to Respondent
No.2. However, it is contended that the said cheque was enchased in
the account of one Benita on 27.08.2003, who is alleged to be the
niece of Respondent No.2.

8. It is further alleged that the petitioner was informed by
Respondent No.2 that the said amount would stand as a loan for
Medical Expenses, and that he would repay the same. However,
Respondent No.2 failed to pay back the money.

9. Petitioner sent a legal notice dated 23.03.2004 to Respondent
No.2 demanding repayment of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% per annum w.e.f. 10.07.2003. However, the same was not
complied with.

10. After coming to know that Respondent No.3 and his wife were
divorced, Petitioner again requested him to marry her however he
refused. Consequently, a complaint was made by the Petitioner
against the Respondents to the Police Authorities.

CRL. REV. P. 487/2016 Page 3 of 7

11. Complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. was also filed in the Court
of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging commission of
offences under section 420, 403 read with section 506 IPC. On an
order passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directions were issued for
registration of FIR under sections 420, 403 read with 506 IPC.
Consequently, subject FIR No. 736 of 2004 was registered under
sections 420, 403 and 506 IPC Police Station Kalkaji. After
investigation Charge Sheet was filed against both the accused persons
under sections 420, 403 and 506 IPC.

12. The Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 24.11.2015 held
that prima facie offence u/s 420/403/506/34 IPC was made out against
both the accused persons Michael and Francis. Prima facie offence
u/s 376/315 IPC was made out against the accused Francis. The case
was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated
30.11.2015.

13. By the impugned order dated 01.07.2016, the Additional
Sessions Judge discharged Respondent No.2 Michael of all the
offences, inter-alia, on the ground that it was alleged by the Petitioner
that Respondent No.2 had introduced Respondent No.3 to the
Petitioner six years ago representing him as unmarried. However, as
per the marriage certificate placed on record, Respondent No.3 got
married on 29.09.1999, which showed that when Respondent No.2
introduced Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner i.e. in the year 1998,
Respondent No.3 was unmarried. Further the Additional Sessions

CRL. REV. P. 487/2016 Page 4 of 7
Judge noted that legal notice dated 23.03.2004 sent by the Petitioner
did not mention that Respondent No.2 had represented that
Respondent No.3 was unmarried.

14. It is further noted, that it was alleged in the notice that
Respondent No.2 had taken a short-term loan of Rs. 20,000/- for
medical expenses which contradicted the contention of the Petitioner
made in the second complaint dated 25.03.2004 that said amount was
taken to pay the balance amount of lawyer’s fee in the divorce
proceeding of Respondent No.3. Even in the first complaint given to
the Crime against Women Cell on 01.08.2003, the Petitioner did not
mention anything about Respondent No.2. Further the Session Judge
noticed that the alleged blank cheque issued by the Petitioner was in
the name of one Benita and not in the name of Respondent No.2.

15. Further, it is noted that during pendency of the Complaint,
parties tried to settle their dispute and Respondent No.3 had agreed to
make the payment of Rs.1,20,000/-to the Petitioner and Rs 1,30,000/-
to one Mr. Prem Singh. Consequently Respondent No.3 was released
on interim bail by order dated 26.10.2004. However, the Petitioner
refused to quash the complaint on the ground that Rs 20,000/- taken
by Respondent No.2 was not paid back. Respondent No. 2 had
offered to pay Rs 10,000 to the Petitioner and Consequently, the
matter was referred to the Lok Adalat but could not be settled.

CRL. REV. P. 487/2016 Page 5 of 7

16. Respondent had thereafter approached the High Court, by
separate petitions seeking quashing of the subject FIR, which petitions
were allowed on the ground of alleged settlement by the Petitioner.
However, in appeal filed by the Petitioner, disputing the settlement,
the orders of the High Court, quashing the FIR, were set aside and the
matter was remitted to the Trial Court.

17. It may further be noticed that prior to the filing of the complaint
under section 200 Cr.P.C., petitioner had lodged a complaint dated
01.08.2003 with the Crime against Women Cell, Nanak Pura. In the
complaint given to Crime against Women Cell, petitioner had not
made any allegations against Michael. In her subsequent complaint
there were improvements in her story.

18. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 10.07.2003, Michael came and
asked for Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the lawyer as professional fee in
the divorce petition filed by the co-accused Francis and she gave a
cheque of Rs. 20,000/- to him dated 10.07.2003. In the legal notice
dated 23.03.2004 sent by petitioner through her counsel, it was stated
that she had given a loan of Rs. 20,000/- to the Michael to meet
medical expenses. The cheque was issued in the name of Benita, the
niece of Michael and not in the name of Michael

19. For framing a charge not only suspicions but grave suspicion,
of the accused having committed the offence, is required. Clearly no

CRL. REV. P. 487/2016 Page 6 of 7
offence under sections 417, 376, 313, 420, 403, 506 IPC is made out
against Michael.

20. On perusal of the record, I satisfied that there is no material to
raise grave suspicion of Michael having committed an offence under
sections 417, 376, 313, 420, 403, 506 IPC and Francis having
committed an offence under sections 420, 403, 506 IPC. I find no
infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court. The Petition is
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

21. It is clarified that as there is no challenge by Francis to the
order framing charge against him of having committed an offence
under sections 417, 376, 313 IPC, I have neither considered nor
commented on the merits of the said charge.

22. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.

OCTOBER 30, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
HJ

CRL. REV. P. 487/2016 Page 7 of 7

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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