* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:23.08.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 731/2017
STATE NCT OF DELHI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State
with SI Dharamvir Singh, PS – CWC,
JATIN KAPOOR ….. Respondent
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL.M.A 16081/2017 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 731/2017 and CRL.M.A 16080/2019
3. Vide the present revision petition, the petitioner – State seeks setting
aside the part of the order dated 04.05.2017 whereby the respondent was
discharged for offence U/s 313 SectionIPC and consequently direct framing of
charges U/s 313 SectionIPC.
4. The present revision petition is filed on the ground that learned trial
court while passing the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 ignored the fact
that there is a specific allegation in the complaint of the complainant that the
CRL.REV.P. 731/2017 Page 1 of 6
accused-respondent did not want the child as he was afraid that if the child is
born, the complainant may claim 2/3rd share in his properties and assets.
5. Learned trial court also ignored the fact that the complainant in
complaint dated 10.06.2013 and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had
categorically attributed that on the intervening night of 5/6 June, 2011, she
was hit on her abdomen by her husband and she was dragged out of the bed
as a result thereof her condition worsened and she had to go to the hospital
in this regard wherein doctor told her to go to shelter home or to her parent’s
house in India.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-
State submits that the Ld. ASJ erred while not, appreciating the fact that the
complainant was forced to bring more dowry and when she refused, she was
humiliated and subjected to cruelty.
7. He submits that based upon the allegation in the complaint, the
learned Judge is bound to frame the charge under Section 313 IPC and if any
clinching evidence is with the respondent / accused, he may take the benefit
of the same during the trial.
8. It is not disputed by the petitioner that initially FIR No. 106/2013 was
registered under Section 498A/Section406/Section34,SectionIPC 02.07.2013 on the complaint of
CRL.REV.P. 731/2017 Page 2 of 6
the complainant whereby, she has alleged that once her marriage was fixed
with accused in December, 2010, different demands were made by his
family members qua venue of functions associated with marriage. Further,
though her father spent about 2 crores on her marriage, but parents of
accused were not happy. Further, after marriage, she stayed with accused
and his family at Delhi for about one month and after that she went to her
husband to U.K. The respondent had demanded ₹ 50,000/- in U.K. from her
and when she refused, she was beaten by him. Meanwhile, her father-in-law
also came to U.K. and they also quarrelled with her and beaten her. Then she
came to India in February, 2011 to attend her brother’s marriage and went
back to U.K. Thereafter, she became pregnant, but she was not well and
doctors in U.K. advised her to go back to India because accused-respondent
wanted her abortion done in U.K. In the month of June, 2011, she returned
to her parents at Delhi. Her father suffered minor heart attack when she
informed them about different incidents of cruelty. Moreover, her condition
deteriorated so much that her mis-carriage happened. Further, efforts were
made to settle the disputes, but to no avail and she was not permitted to stay
with accused-respondent in U.K. However, she went to U.K. for her studies
and resided separately but she did not report the said incidents of quarrels
CRL.REV.P. 731/2017 Page 3 of 6
and beating at U.K. as it could hamper her studies.
9. During investigation, supplementary statement of complainant was
recorded whereby she disclosed that immediately after her marriage,
accused-respondent and his parents kept her jewellery with them at Delhi
house on the pretext of keeping it in safe custody, but it was not returned
despite repeated requests. Further, she added that accused-respondent too
came to India to attend the marriage of her brother and he returned to U.K.
on 22.02.2011. She returned to U.K. after two months on 22.04.2011 and
thereafter, she stayed with her guardian because of her coming examination.
When she informed her husband about her pregnancy on 20.05.2011, he
took her to his place from her guardian’s place, but since then he started
pressurizing her for abortion and one day, after getting annoyed on the issue
of abortion, he gave a fist blow on her abdomen and since then she started
having pain in her abdomen. Subsequently, offence under Section 313 IPC
was added in the case by the police.
10. The medical reports of U.K. qua pregnancy of complainant have been
attached along with charge sheet. Though, the learned counsel for the
respondent has questioned the admissibility of these medical reports,
however, genuineness of these reports was confirmed by the concerned I.O.,
CRL.REV.P. 731/2017 Page 4 of 6
through e-mail and trial court was of the view that these could be looked
into at this stage of charge and the question of admissibility can be decided
during trial, if required. As per the allegation, the respondent landed a fist
blow on her abdomen few days after 20.05.2011 when she disclosed about
her pregnancy and thereafter, she had to go to London hospital on
07.06.2014 on account of bleeding.
11. The learned trial Court perused the clinical notes of U.K. hospital
which established that the complainant had disclosed to doctor that there
have been arguments between her and her husband recently and they used to
hit each other while fighting and screaming but at the same time she denied
any specific episode of injury/trauma. Accordingly, the trial Court opined
that complainant had not alleged at that time that accused had hit her on her
abdomen. There seems to be no reason as to why the complainant would
hide such an important information, especially after knowing that because of
the said act, the bleeding started during early stage of pregnancy, as alleged
12. It is not the case of the complainant that she had not disclosed
anything to the doctor about their matrimonial dispute. When complainant
had frankly told the doctor that there had been arguments, fighting and even
CRL.REV.P. 731/2017 Page 5 of 6
hitting between them, her omission about disclosing the specific incident of
punching her abdomen only indicate that there had been no such incident.
13. In view of the above, the learned trial Court recorded that when
complainant has herself admitted that they used to hit each other, without
alleging hitting at abdomen, no inference can be drawn that accused had hit
complainant with the intention to cause injury resulting into mis-carriage.
Moreover, complainant while indulging in fighting and hitting with her
husband knowing well that she was pregnant. In that condition, even an
accidental injury can be fatal for fetus.
14. In view of the facts recorded above, this Court is of the view that
there is no illegality and perversity in the order of the learned ASJ by not
framing charge under Section 313 IPC against the respondent. However, this
Court hereby makes it clear that if during trial, clinching evidence comes
before the trial Court, the Court may take action at that stage as per the law.
15. In view of the above, the present revision petition is dismissed not
only on merit but also on the ground of delay and latches. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
AUGUST 23, 2019
CRL.REV.P. 731/2017 Page 6 of 6