CRR-2851-2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CRR-2851-2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 13.3.2019
Yogesh Prabhakar and another
……….PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
Monika Prabhakar alias Monika Sharma
……..RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI
Present: Mr. Yogesh Prabhakar in person.
Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*******
RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, J.
The petitioner has filed this consecutive petition under the
provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure solely on
the ground that the charges have not been properly framed by the learned
trial court vide order dated 29.7.2017.
The wife of the petitioner filed a complaint under the
provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was
summoned vide order dated 9.7.2009 and the charges were framed
against him. He challenged the charge solely on the ground that order of
1 of 5
18-03-2019 02:12:51 :::
CRR-2851-2017 (OM) 2
charge is not speaking and is without any reasons by filing CRM-M-
18674-2014. That petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
27.5.2014 by passing the following order : –
“The petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with
liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court at the time
of framing of charge.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The trial
Court shall pass a speaking order in respect of framing of
charges, if any,.”
Charges were framed against the petitioner. He preferred
CRR-587-2015 which was disposed of by passing the following order : –
“A plain reading of order dated 05.01.2015 would make it
evident that the trial Magistrate has not passed a speaking
order while framing charge against the petitioner and his co-
accused.
The order passed by the trial Court reads as
follows:-
“Heard. A prima facie case punishable under
Sections 406 and 498-A IPC is made out against the accused.
They have been charge sheeted accordingly………..”
As the order passed by the trial Court framing
charge against the petitioner and his co-accused is in
complete violation of the directions issued by this Court, the
same cannot be allowed to sustain and ordered to be set
aside.
2 of 5
18-03-2019 02:12:51 :::
CRR-2851-2017 (OM) 3For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 05.01.2015 and the charge sheet of the
even date are ordered to be set aside. The matter is remitted
to the trial Court for considering the question of charge
afresh, in complete consonance of the order dated
27.05.2014 passed by this Court.”
A bare perusal of the complaint transpires that in para 16, the
allegations with regard to entrustment have been made and in para 17, is
with regard to jurisdiction. It is apposite to reproduce para 16 and 17 of
the complaint as under : –
“16. That the T.V. And A.C., Golden chain, Ring,
Wrist watch were entrusted to accused No.1 which are in his
possession and refuse to return back the same and furniture,
loapola dinner set and five suitcases of V.I.P. And one
Aristocrat and two blankets and one set of gold and rings
and all other gold ornaments were entrusted to accused no.1,
which are in her possession which she refuse to return and
all other articles mentioned in the list attached are in
common possession of both the accused persons which were
entrusted to them and they refuse to return the same.
17. That the complainant is residing with her
parents Durga Nagar, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala and some
dowry articles were also entrusted to accused persons at
Ambala and were also demanded back from the accused
persons to return to the complainant at Durga Nagar Ambala
3 of 5
18-03-2019 02:12:51 :::
CRR-2851-2017 (OM) 4city where both the accused persons refused to return and
they also humiliated, thrashed, beaten and also treated the
complainant with cruelty for demand of dowry, hence this
Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the
complaint and as such they have committed offences u/s 406,
498-A IPC.”
From para 16 of the complaint, it is clear that factum of
entrustment has been classified into three segments; first entrustment to
petitioner-Yogesh Prabhakar which is of TV, AC, golden chain, ring,
wrist watch; secondly, to his mother Smt. Renu Prabhakar which includes
furniture, loapola dinner set and five suitcases of VIP and one aristocrat
and two blankets and one set of gold and rings and all remaining
ornaments. However, it has been submitted that the remaining articles
shown in the list attached with the complaint are in possession of both the
petitioners and his mother.
A bare perusal of the charge sheet makes it clear that it
relates to only third category (common entrustment). The charge sheet
reads as under : –
“That after the marriage of complainant with Accused
Yogesh Prabhakar on 22.04.2004, you both misappropriated
the dowry articles belonging to complainant Monika
Prabhakar which were entrusted to you at the time of
marriage by dishonestly converting the same to your own
use and thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 406 of IPC and within my cognizance.
4 of 5
18-03-2019 02:12:51 :::
CRR-2851-2017 (OM) 5Secondly, after the marriage, you both subjected
complainant Monika Prabhakar with cruelty by giving
beatings, taunting and demanding more dowry and you have
thereby committed an offence punishable under section 498-
A IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the
above said charge.”
When specific entrustment was made to the petitioner of
some of the articles and remaining to his mother, it must be mentioned in
the charge sheet. Even in the order vide which the charge was framed,
these facts have not been mentioned.
In this view of the matter, learned Judicial Magistrate failed
to comply with the directions of this Court passed in CRR-587-2015 as
well as in CRM-M-18774-2014.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 29.7.2017 and the charge sheet of even date are
ordered to be set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for
considering the question of charge afresh, in complete consonance of the
order dated 27.5.2014 passed by this Court.
( RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)
March 13, 2019 JUDGE
Paritosh Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
18-03-2019 02:12:51 :::