* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 06.03.2019
+ CRL.REV.P. 427/2016
THE STATE GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI ….. Petitioner
SATYAVIR SINGH ANR ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State.
ASI Sunder Prakash, CAW.
For the Respondents: None.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 427/2016 Crl.M.A.9640/2016 (for condonation of
1. Petitioner State has filed the revision petition impugning order
dated 04.02.2016, whereby, the Trial Court has discharged
respondents in case FIR No.282/2014 under Sections
2. Respondents are the sister of the husband as well as her
husband. Allegations against the respondents were made under
Section 498A IPC.
CRL.REV.P. 427/2016 Page 1 of 3
3. The Trial Court after considering the investigative material as
well as the charge sheet was of the view that there was no material
that has surfaced during investigation, of the respondents having
committed the said offence.
4. The allegations of the prosecutrix were that she was harassed by
her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. Insofar as the
respondents are concerned, the only allegations against them are that
they used to come to the house of the prosecutrix and abuse her and
5. The Trial Court by the impugned order has noticed as under:-
“13. Accused Satyavir Singh is the brother-in-law
(Nandoi)of the prosecutrix and accused Rajwati is
the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the prosecutrix. The
only allegation made by the prosecutrix against
them is that these accused persons used to come to
her home alongwith accused Radhey Shyam and
they used to harass her for demand of dowry. It is
not the case of the prosecutrix that these accused
persons were residing at her matrimonial home.
There are no particulars about the date or month
when these accused persons came to the
matrimonial home or parental home of the
prosecutrix. In her statement under section 164
Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix has not made any
allegation against these accused persons. There is
no sufficient material available on record which
raises grave suspicion that these accused persons
have committed any offences. Thus, accused
persons Satyavir Singh and Rajwati are
CRL.REV.P. 427/2016 Page 2 of 3
6. The Trial Court has discharged the respondents on the ground
that the prosecutrix has made vague and unsubstantial allegations that
they used to harass her for demand of dowry. The Trial Court has
noticed that no particulars about the date, month or detail of the said
demands have been mentioned.
7. Perusal of the FIR shows that there is only one-line allegation
against the respondents that they used to come to her house and abuse
her and demand dowry. In her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., there is no allegation against the respondents.
8. Perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the allegations
against the respondents are vague and have not been substantiated
during investigation. The prosecutrix had not given any detail or
description about the alleged demand of dowry or the period or the
date when the same was made. It is an admitted position that the
respondents were not residing with the prosecutrix.
9. On perusal of the record, I am satisfied with the view taken by
the Trial Court that there is no material to raise grave suspicion
against the respondents of them having committed any offence.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
MARCH 06, 2019/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CRL.REV.P. 427/2016 Page 3 of 3