Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
$-12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE 994/2013
Between:-
SMT. SHIPALI SHARMA
D/O SH. LAVKESH SHARMA
W/O SH. GAURAV SHARMA
R/O HOUSE NO. H-1/125,
GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI – 110018 ..... PETITIONER
(By Shri Rudra Pratap, Advocate.)
AND
STATE ..... RESPONDENT NO. 1
SAURABH SHARMA
S/O SH. JAGMOHAN SHARMA
R/O HOUSE NO. H-1/125,
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI – 110018 ..... RESPONDENT NO. 2
(By Shri Hemant Mehla, APP for State along with SI Vijay Pal
Singh, PS CWC Nanak Pura.
Shri S.C.Singhal and Shri Pradeep Verma, Advocates for R-2.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Pronounced on : 18.08.2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:22.08.2022
11:25:18
- 2 -
J U D G M E N T
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the
order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Rev. No.146/2012,
whereby, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the discharge
of respondent No.2, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had lodged an FIR
No.53/2008 against her husband and other family members including
respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is the brother-in-law of the
petitioner. The police registered offences under Sections 498A/34 of
the IPC against the husband of the petitioner and her in-laws. The
police, after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against all the
accused persons.
3. On 25.08.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate heard the
parties on charge. After perusal of the material available on record,
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not find any specific
allegation of harassment or demand of dowry against respondent
No.2/brother-in-law of the petitioner. Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate opined that the allegations were very vague and do not
amount to cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of the IPC. No
prima facie case was made out and, therefore, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate discharged respondent No.2 from charges
under Section 498A/34 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
however, framed charges against all other accused persons. The
petitioner, therefore, preferred revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned
revisional court, while placing reliance on the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India v. Prafulla
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:22.08.2022
11:25:18
- 3 -
1
Kumar Samal and Anr. , Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of
2
Maharashtra and Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
3
Investigation , has held that the alleged act of the respondent No.2
does not amount to cruelty, as per explanation (a) and (b) of Section
498A of IPC and, therefore, dismissed the revision filed by the
petitioner. In other words, the discharge of Respondent No.2 was
confirmed by the learned revisional court.
4. Shri Rudra Pratap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that both the courts have gravely erred in not
considering the allegations made in the FIR which clearly constitute
an offence under Section 498A of IPC. He has referred to various
paragraphs of the FIR to demonstrate that specific allegations have
been made against the in-laws of the petitioner. According to him,
when it is mentioned that the in-laws were subjecting the petitioner to
harassment, it is not, therefore, necessary to make a specific allegation
against each of the in-laws’ and that, in-laws would include all,
including the Respondent No.2.
5. Shri S.C. Singhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2 opposes the prayer and submits that this court should
not interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned
revisional court. The allegations in the FIR are not specific and,
therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly discharged
respondent No.2 and no illegality has been committed by the
revisional court in dismissing the revision petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties
and perused the record. Section 498A of the IPC prescribes that
whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
1
1979 3 SCC 4
2
2002 2 SCC 135
3
2010 9 SCC 368
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:22.08.2022
11:25:18
Signature Not Verified
- 4 -
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years and shall
also be liable to fine. For the purposes of Section 498A, Explanation
(a) and (b), clearly gives out as to what would “cruelty” mean. It has
been prescribed that “cruelty” means any willful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her
to meet such demand.
7. It is, thus, seen that in the instant case, at best, the petitioner can
claim applicability of Explanation (b) of Section 498A, however, the
same also requires an element of harassment or coercion for unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security and failure thereof to
meet such a demand. In the instant case, general allegations are
pointed out that all in-laws were demanding dowry. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 has dealt with
the allegations and found that no offence under Section 498A of IPC
is made out. The relevant paragraph Nos.9 and 10 are reproduced as
under:
“9. I have perused the complaint dated 15.04.2008
which contains the detailed allegations made by the
petitioner against her husband and in-laws. The only
allegation made against respondent no.2 in the
complaint is that her brother in-law i.e. respondent
no.2 had a bad eye on her and in-laws supported him.
In the opinion of this court, the alleged act of
respondent no.2 in having a bad eye on the petitioner
does not amount to cruelty as per explanation (a) and
(b) of Section 498A IPC.
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:22.08.2022
11:25:18
Signature Not Verified
- 5 -
10. The other allegations against respondent no.2 are
that petitioner’s husband used to invite respondent
no.2 in his room and used to watch TV till 12 o’clock
in the night due to which petitioner was made to wait
in the drawing room. It is further alleged in the
complaint that petitioner’s husband used to force her
to go with respondent no.2 and when petitioner
opposed this, her husband and in-laws used to beat
her. The aforesaid allegations of the petitioner are
against the conduct of her husband and no cruelty
has been alleged against respondent no.2 in the above
stated allegations in terms of Explanation (a) and (b)
of Section 498A IPC. There are no other allegations
alleging harassment by respondent no.2 for the
purpose of dowry by the petitioner in her complaint.
Therefore, from the aforesaid allegations made in the
complaint, no offence u/s 498A IPC is made out
against respondent no.2. Hence, the ld.trial court
rightly discharged the respondent no.2 for the offence
u/s 498A IPC as per law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India as discussed hereinabove. ”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently, in the case of Kahkashan
4
Kausar Alias Sonam and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. has
considered the petition seeking quashing of FIR relating to omnibus
allegations made against all family members of the husband. While
placing reliance on its earlier pronouncements in the matters of G. V.
5
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. , Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of
6 7
Jharkhand & Anr. , Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. ,
8
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr. , Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v.
9 10
State of U.P. & Anr. and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias
4
2022 6 SCC 599
5
2000 3 SCC 693
6
2010 7 SCC 667
7
2012 10 SCC 741
8
2014 8 SCC 273
9
2018 10 SCC 472
10
2018 14 SCC 452
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:22.08.2022
11:25:18
Signature Not Verified
- 6 -
Snam and Ors. ( supra ) has noticed the misuse of Section 498A IPC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.17 of its pronouncement
held that if false implications, by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial dispute are left unchecked, the
same would result in misuse of the process of law. Paragraph No.17 is
being reproduced as under:
“ The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this
Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the
misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,
without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from
the said judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute,
if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.
Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. ”
9. It is a settled law that a judge, while considering the question of
framing of charges, is certainly empowered to weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. Where the material placed
before the court discloses great suspicion against the accused, which
has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
farming the charge and proceeding with the trial. However, if two
views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him gave rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, the judge will be fully justified to
discharge the accused. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227
of Cr.P.C., the judge cannot act merely as the post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the court and should not make a roving
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:22.08.2022
11:25:18
Signature Not Verified
- 7 -
inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as
if he was conducting a trial [ Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr.
( supra )].
10. Taking into consideration the overall facts of the present case
and in the absence of any specific allegation or role attributed to
respondent No.2, this court does not find any justification to take a
different view than the one which has already been taken by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate and affirmed by the learned
revisional court.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition stands dismissed.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
AUGUST 18 , 2022
Priya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYA
Signing Date:22.08.2022
11:25:18