Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No. 1477 of 2008
Reserved on : . 07.05.2008
th
% Date of Decision: May 16 , 2008
# Mr. Daulat Ram Gautam & Ors. ..... Petitioner
! Through Mr. K.K. Sharma, Advocate
Versus
$ State ..... Respondents
^ Through Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Additional
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes.
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J:
1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 353/2005 registered with
Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi under sections 406, 498A and 34 IPC
as well as the proceedings now pending before the court of Ms. Rekha,
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 1 of 8
2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the father and mother of Mr. Vipin
Gautam i.e. the husband of the complainant Ms. Monika. The
Petitioner’s counsel Mr. Sharma states that Ms. Monika/Complainant has
been treated by the Petitioner No. 1 as his niece and the Petitioner No. 1
had even performed the bhaat ceremony of the elder sister of the
Complainant. It is pertinent to mention that the bhaat ceremony is
performed at the marriage of a girl by her maternal uncle. Mr. Sharma
states that the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, their relatives and friends had never
consented to the marriage of the Complainant with their son as the said
marriage was against their will and without their knowledge. He further
urges that the Complainant and Mr. Vipin had always resided separately
from the Petitioners. He also refers to documents to show that the
th
Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 had not only disowned their son Mr. Vipin on 28
nd
March, 2004 but had also filed complaints with the local police on 2
th
August, 2004 and 28 September, 2004, alleging harassment and
threats by the parents of the Complainant. Learned counsel further
submits that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners
either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet and the allegations levelled by
the Complainant are vague, involving all the close and remote family
members and it is a fit case where criminal proceedings against the
Petitioners can be quashed at the threshold stage itself. Mr. Sharma
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 2 of 8
referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in
“Sangeeta Kalra Vs. State” reported in 138 (2007) Delhi Law Times
535 wherein it has been held that criminal justice system cannot be used
as a tool for arm twisting and to settle scores and further that the High
Court can intervene in such a situation.
3. Since only a charge-sheet has been filed, the complaint in my
opinion in the present case can be quashed at this initial stage only if the
allegations made in the complaint, if taken on their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute any offence against the
Petitioners. Before I proceed any further I may refer to the complaint as
extracted in the charge-sheet filed by the police. The relevant portion of
the charge-sheet is as follows :-
“I reside in the above address, I got married on 28.3.2004
with Vipin Gautam, S/o Daulat Ram Gautam, R/o. H.No.
13 Summon Bazar, Jangpura Bhogal, Delhi in Arya
Samaj Mandir, Mukhmelpur, Delhi. Marriage took place in
accordance with Hindu customary rites. After marriage my
husband took me at his residence in Bhogal. My Father-
in-Law Daulat Ram Gautam [Petitioner No.1] called my
father Radhey Shyam along with all family members and
asked them to take me away from their house, but my
brothers strongly objected this and thereafter I, stayed at
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 3 of 8
my in-laws house. On the same night in-laws beaten me
up and also used abusive language. Next morning my
husband Vipin Gautam took me in rented house No. Y-
606 in Mangol Puri and after 2 months we have shifted to
Y-611 in Mangol Puri. After that my father-in-law Daulat
Ram Gautam [Petitioner No. 1] , mother-in-law Smt.
Narendri Devi [Petitioner No.2], Uncle Radhey Shyam
(elder brother of father-in-law, two other uncles (younger
brother of father-in-law) [Petitioner No. 3] , Narendra
[Petitioner No.4] , Satish [Petitioner No.5] . Vipin’s aunt &
uncle’s son Sunil [Petitioner No.7] & Vikas [Petitioner
No.6] , Hemant (Vipin’s jeeja or Brother-in-law) [Petitioner
No.9] , Chandrakanta (Vipin’s Sister) [Petitioner No.10] ,
Vipin’s aunt Ramwati [Petitioner No.8] visited the house
from time to time and thereafter they have started
taunting and harassing me by using abusive/rude
language that I did not bring any dowry from my house.
They insisted for bringing money from my house or
otherwise commit suicide by consuming poison. We
would get our son married to somebody else. My
husband demanded residential house, motor cycle and
cash of Rs. 75,000/- for running a computer business and
when I refused for the same, he started beating me up.
The purpose behind this marriage is to fulfill his physical
desire and to extort money. He succeeded in his
fulfillment of his intentions. Whenever my in-laws visited,
they used to abuse me and used to instigate my husband
to thrash me and as a consequence, my husband used to
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 4 of 8
beat me but they never intervened to stop this. They
used to force me to bring money and dowry and told my
husband to leave me so that they could collect articles &
money by second marriage. In June 2004 Sunil, along
with both uncles Satish [Petitioner No.5] and Narendra
[Petitioner No.4] , uncle Hemant (jeeja) [Petitioner No.9]
came at Y-Block residence in Mangol Puri and at that
time Vipin was not at home, these people abused me and
beaten me up and they left me with the warning that
either I should leave Vipin or bring dowry from my house.
One day Chandrakanta [Petitioner No.10] , Mayawati
(bua), mother-in-law Narendri Devi [Petitioner No.2] &
Hemant [Petitioner No.9] came at our house and started
abusing me, also they poured hot oil over me and I got
my right hand burnt. I complained to my husband about
this but he stopped me to complain to the police and got
me privately treated. These people demanded dowry and
harassed me on one pretext or the other. At that time
Radhey Shyam (Tau) [Petitioner No. 3] & his son Vikas
were also present there. My sister-in-law Chandrakanta
[Petitioner No.10] caught hold of my hand and my mother-
in-law and aunt poured the oil over me. These people
used to harass me for not bringing dowry. I used to earn
my livelihood by taking tuitions. During this period my
father Radhey Shyam got retired. At my instance, my
father gave Rs. 75,000/- to Vipin and 4 Gold bangles, a
Necklace, 3 rings, God Chain weighting in all 113-620 gm
to me for my happiness. But thereafter also these people
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 5 of 8
were not happy and demanded more dowry form me.
After sometime of my marriage, I got pregnant in June
2004 but in-laws, mother-in-law and father-in-law, aunt
(Bua) Mayawati instigated my husband to abort the child
and I refused my husband from doing this, then he beaten
me up and warned me that he would leave her. Having
no options left, I aborted the child but even thereafter the
cruel behavior of my husband & in –laws did not come to
an end. These people instigated my husband to beat me
up. On 15.4.2005 my husband thrashed me and left me
alone while taking along with him all the gold jewelry,
cash and thereafter did not return back. On 19.4.2005 I
went to my parent’s house at Keshav Puram. Since then
my husband did not return to take me back. In this
manner my husband, in-laws and other members
harassed in different manners. I have been beaten up
and dowry has been demanded on various occasions.
On my refusal, I was beaten up and suffered mental as
well as physical injuries and left me after taking jewellery
and cash. My husband, Vipin Gautam and his family
members and other relatives who are above named, a
legal action may be taken and my jewellery, cash be
returned to me.”
4. On reading of the complaint I cannot say that the allegations
levelled against the Petitioners do not prima facie make out a case
against the Petitioners. At this stage, I also cannot rely upon the
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 6 of 8
documents filed by the Petitioners as their veracity has yet to be tested.
Surely, if the Petitioner’s version and the documents are correct then the
complaint as filed would not be sustainable, but then that is for the trial
court to decide after hearing all concerned.
5. The case of Sangeeta Kalra referred to by Petitioner’s counsel
would not be applicable in as much as in the said case this Hon’ble
Court found that the Complainant had after voluntarily leaving her
matrimonial home suddenly changed colours and made allegations of
dowry demand, cruelty and used language which is not used by a
civilized persons. In the present case there is no such admission by the
Complainant either in the complaint or in any of the documents filed by
the police along with the charge-sheet. Consequently, the said case is
of no relevance to the present facts of the case.
6. Mr. Sharma says that today it has become quite common for the
wives to file complaints against all the family members of the husband.
However, at this stage I cannot reach this conclusion in the present
case. I may mention here that the matter is now fixed for framing of
charge before the trial court. At that stage the trial court undoubtedly
has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for finding out whether or
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 7 of 8
not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
Consequently, it would be open for the petitioners to urge at the charge
stage that the material placed before the court do not disclose grave
suspicion against the accused and on this account they need to be
discharged.
7. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed but with no order as to
costs. However, it is clarified that any observation made in the present
order would not prejudice either of the parties and the trial court would
apply its mind independently and decide the case in accordance with
law.
[MANMOHAN]
Judge.
th
May 16 , 2008
rn
Crl. M.C. No.1477/2008 Page No. 8 of 8