SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Shyamlal & Anr. on 5 February, 2019

$~26

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05.02.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 720/2017
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Petitioner
versus

SHYAMLAL ANR ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Avi Singh, ASC with Ms. Purnima, Advocate.
SI Sunil Kumar, PS Govind

For the Respondent: Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and
2 with respondent Nos.1 and 2 in person.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. State has filed this revision petition impugning order dated
20.02.017, whereby, respondents have been discharged of the offences
under Section 498A/34/304B IPC. Respondents are the father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the deceased. The husband of the deceased is
already facing trial.

2. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that
the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the entire material that
was placed on record along with the chargesheet and bare reading of
the order shows that what was taken into account by the Trial Court

CRL.REV.P. 720/2017 Page 1 of 4
was only the statement of the complainant and on reading of the
statement of the complainant, the Trial Court had formed an opinion
that there is no material to frame charge against the respondents.

3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that
there were statements and other material on record filed along with
the chargesheet, inter alia, the statement of the sister of the deceased,
who is also married into the same family and resided with the
deceased and the respondents as also the statement of the brother of
the deceased, which clearly show that grave suspicion arises against
the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if the
entire material as filed along with the chargesheet is taken into
account, there is no incriminating material against the respondents of
having made any demand for dowry or of harassment of the deceased.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the examination by
the Trial Court has been restricted to the statement of the complainant.

6. The Trial Court has inter alia held as under:-

“I have examined the statement of the complainant on
which present case was registered. In the entire
complaint made to the SDM, the complainant has
nowhere alleged any demand/torture/harassment
committed by either of the accused persons upon the
deceased related to dowry. Hence, I have no hesitation in
holding that no offence under section 498A IPC is made

CRL.REV.P. 720/2017 Page 2 of 4
out against either of the accused persons. Accordingly,
they are discharged for the said offence……..”

7. No doubt, the Trial Court does not have to give detailed reason
at the stage of framing of charge. However, as noticed above, in the
instant case, the Trial Court has given reasons and the reason given by
the Trial Court is that on examination of the statement of the
complainant, there is no incriminating material found against the
respondents and hence they have been discharged. From the order it
is apparent that the Trial Court has not taken into account other
material that was placed along with the chargesheet by the
prosecution.

8. Since the entire order of the Trial Court discharging the two
respondents is based solely on the statement of the complainant and
does not show consideration of the other material, I am of the view
that the impugned order dated 20.02.2017 requires to be set aside and
the matter remitted to the Trial Court for re-examination of the entire
material filed by the prosecution along with the chargesheet to
ascertain if grave suspicion arises against the respondents, sufficient
to frame charge.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.02.2017,
insofar as it discharges the respondents, is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the Trial Court for re-examination of the chargesheet and
the evidence enclosed therewith for consideration of framing of

CRL.REV.P. 720/2017 Page 3 of 4
charge.

10. It is further directed that the Trial Court, for framing of charge,
shall restrict its examination to the chargesheet and enclosed
evidences and shall not take into account evidence that has come
before the Trial Court in the trial against the husband of the deceased.

11. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

13. It is informed that the next date before the Trial Court is
12.03.2019. The respondents shall appear before the Trial Court on
the next date, i.e., 12.03.2019.

14. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

15. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

FEBRUARY 05, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st

CRL.REV.P. 720/2017 Page 4 of 4

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