SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Yogesh Prabhakar & Anr vs Monika Prabhakar on 13 March, 2019

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Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.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) 3

For 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) 4

city 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) 5

Secondly, 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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

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