Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3304/2010 & Crl.M.A. 16463/2010 (stay)
th
% Reserved on: 18 November, 2011
th
Decided on: 4 January, 2012
PRADEEP GOYAL & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with
SI Umesh Rana, PS Saraswati Vihar.
Mr. Gaurav Bhushan, Mr. Y.P.
Sharma, Mr.Amit Vashisth, Advs. for
R-2.
AND
+ CRL.M.C. 3349/2010 & Crl.M.A. 16610/2010 (stay)
KRISHANA DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with
SI Umesh Rana, PS Saraswati Vihar.
Mr. Gaurav Bhushan, Mr. Y.P.
Sharma, Mr.Amit Vashisth, Advs. for
R-2.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. FIR No. 455/2003 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered
against the Petitioners in the present two petitions on the complaint of
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 1 of 6
Respondent No.2 Ms. Manisha Goyal. On filing of the charge-sheet learned
th
Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order dated 10 March, 2010 directed
framing of charge under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against Petitioner
Krishna Devi and Under Sections 498A/34 IPC against Petitioners Anil
Goyal and Savita. The said order was challenged by both the State in
Criminal Revision No. 2/2010 and the Petitioners Krishna Devi, Anil Goyal
and Savita in the Criminal Revision No. 637/2010 before the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
2. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its impugned order dated
th
12 April, 2010 dismissed the revision petition filed by the Petitioners
holding that there was no illegality in the impugned order as there was prima
facie sufficient material on record directing framing of charge against
Krishna Devi for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and against Anil
Goyal and Savita for offence under Sections 498A/34 IPC. The State also
th
challenged the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10
March, 2010 discharging Pradeep Goyal, Veena @ Anjali, Kajal Mittal,
Vineet Mittal and Ms. Savita. It may be noted that Ms. Savita had been
charged only for offence under Sections 498A/34 IPC and the revision
petition filed by her against the said order had already been dismissed by the
th
Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12 April, 2010.
However the Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its impugned order
th
dated 18 August, 2010 allowed the revision petition filed by the State and
directed framing of charge under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against Ms.
Savita, Pradeep Goyal, Veena @ Anjali, Kajal Mittal and Vineet Mittal. It
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 2 of 6
may be noted that the two revision petitions got listed before two different
Judges against the same order.
3. Since the two orders impugned arise from a common charge-sheet, the
same are being dealt together.
4. The allegations as set out by the complainant in the FIR were that she
nd
was married to Rakesh Goyal on 22 February 1996 at Delhi according to
Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties lived together and a daughter
st
Ashima Goyal was born on 31 May, 2000. The parents of the complainant
spent huge amount in the marriage besides giving a maruti car on demand.
Even then the husband and her in-laws were not happy and satisfied and they
continuously harassed and threatened the complainant for bringing
insufficient dowry articles. As per the complaint the complainant was
continuously subjected to very inhumane mental and physical torture,
beatings and maltreatment by her husband along with his mother Smt.
Krishna Devi, brother Anil Goyal, sisters Ms. Savita, Ms. Veena @ Anjali
her husband Pradeep Goyal, Ms. Kajal and her husband Vineet Mittal and
kept her hungry to put pressure on her to get fulfilled their demands from her
parents. It is further alleged that her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law
and sisters-in-law Ms. Savita and Ms. Veena @ Anjali took her jewellery
ornaments approximately 800 gms on the pretext of keeping it in safe
custody and never returned. The remaining 200 gms jewellery was taken
th
away by her husband when he left the matrimonial home on 24 February,
2003 except approximately 60 gms of jewellery which the complainant was
wearing at that time. It is further alleged that her mother-in-law, sisters-in-
law Savita and Veena @ Anjali and brother-in-law Pradeep Goyal always
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 3 of 6
incited her husband to take divorce from the complainant or to kill her, so
that they could marry him again. According to the complainant, her husband
along with his mother and sister Savita tried to get rid of her and tried that
th
her husband married a divorcee lady Anju Kapoor. On 24 February, 2003
her husband went to his factory and did not return home. She enquired from
her parents about him. However, nobody had any knowledge about him. Her
parents contracted her in-laws about the same and requested them to come at
th
their residence. On 26 February, 2003 her mother-in-law and brother-in-
law Anil Goyal came in the morning and shouted at her parents that they
knew about the whereabouts of her husband and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and
only then they would let them know about the whereabouts of Rakesh, the
husband of the complainant. Anil Goyal further shouted that if the demand
was not fulfilled they would arrange the marriage of Rakesh with the said
lady. In the meantime Pradeep Goyal also came there and shouted at her
father and threatened him with dire consequences. Thus, she sought legal
action against all of them.
5. A perusal of the complaint reveals that there is no specific allegation
against Kajal Mittal and Vineet Mittal except that all the in-laws caused
continuous inhumane mental and physical torture, beating and maltreatment.
There is no allegation of entrustment to either Kajal or Vineet Mittal. Hence
in the facts of the case Kajal and Vineet Mittal are liable to be discharged of
th
the offences under Section 498A/406/34 IPC & impugned order dated 18
August 2010 is liable to be set aside to this extent.
6. Further as regards Ms. Krishna Devi I find no infirmity in the order of
the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate or the Learned Additional Sessions
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 4 of 6
Judge directing the framing of charge under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and
the order dismissing the revision petition therein.
7. As regards Petitioner Anil Goyal there are specific allegations of
demand of dowry and only thereafter letting the complainant and her father
know the whereabouts of her husband. However, there is no allegation of
criminal breach of trust and thus the only offence for which the Petitioner
Anil Goyal can be charged under Section 498A/34 IPC as held by the
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate which order has not been disturbed by the
th
order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 12 April, 2010.
8. As regards Ms. Savita there are clear allegations of harassment, threats
to kill and also entrustment. Thus, I find no infirmity in the order of the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge directing framing of charge under
Section 498A/406/34 IPC against Ms. Savita.
9. As regards Ms. Veena @ Anjali and Pradeep Goyal besides the
general allegations of harassment for demand of dowry there are specific
allegations that they incited her husband that he should divorce her or kill
her so that they can marry him to the other lady with whom he had extra
marital relations, to fetch good dowry articles. As against Pradeep Goyal
there are allegations of threatening the father of the complainant of dire
consequences. Hence both Veena Goyal and Pradeep Goyal are liable to be
charged for offences under Section 498A IPC. There is no specific
allegation of entrustment against Pradeep Goyal and hence no charge for
offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. There are also specific
allegation of entrustment of istridhan to Ms. Veena @ Anjali which has not
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 5 of 6
been returned on demand. Thus, the Petitioner Veena @ Anjali is also liable
to be charged for offence under Section 406 IPC.
10. The petitions and applications are disposed in terms of the conclusions
as above.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 04, 2012
‘ga’
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 6 of 6
+ CRL.M.C. 3304/2010 & Crl.M.A. 16463/2010 (stay)
th
% Reserved on: 18 November, 2011
th
Decided on: 4 January, 2012
PRADEEP GOYAL & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with
SI Umesh Rana, PS Saraswati Vihar.
Mr. Gaurav Bhushan, Mr. Y.P.
Sharma, Mr.Amit Vashisth, Advs. for
R-2.
AND
+ CRL.M.C. 3349/2010 & Crl.M.A. 16610/2010 (stay)
KRISHANA DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with
SI Umesh Rana, PS Saraswati Vihar.
Mr. Gaurav Bhushan, Mr. Y.P.
Sharma, Mr.Amit Vashisth, Advs. for
R-2.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. FIR No. 455/2003 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered
against the Petitioners in the present two petitions on the complaint of
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 1 of 6
Respondent No.2 Ms. Manisha Goyal. On filing of the charge-sheet learned
th
Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order dated 10 March, 2010 directed
framing of charge under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against Petitioner
Krishna Devi and Under Sections 498A/34 IPC against Petitioners Anil
Goyal and Savita. The said order was challenged by both the State in
Criminal Revision No. 2/2010 and the Petitioners Krishna Devi, Anil Goyal
and Savita in the Criminal Revision No. 637/2010 before the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge.
2. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its impugned order dated
th
12 April, 2010 dismissed the revision petition filed by the Petitioners
holding that there was no illegality in the impugned order as there was prima
facie sufficient material on record directing framing of charge against
Krishna Devi for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and against Anil
Goyal and Savita for offence under Sections 498A/34 IPC. The State also
th
challenged the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10
March, 2010 discharging Pradeep Goyal, Veena @ Anjali, Kajal Mittal,
Vineet Mittal and Ms. Savita. It may be noted that Ms. Savita had been
charged only for offence under Sections 498A/34 IPC and the revision
petition filed by her against the said order had already been dismissed by the
th
Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12 April, 2010.
However the Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its impugned order
th
dated 18 August, 2010 allowed the revision petition filed by the State and
directed framing of charge under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against Ms.
Savita, Pradeep Goyal, Veena @ Anjali, Kajal Mittal and Vineet Mittal. It
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 2 of 6
may be noted that the two revision petitions got listed before two different
Judges against the same order.
3. Since the two orders impugned arise from a common charge-sheet, the
same are being dealt together.
4. The allegations as set out by the complainant in the FIR were that she
nd
was married to Rakesh Goyal on 22 February 1996 at Delhi according to
Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties lived together and a daughter
st
Ashima Goyal was born on 31 May, 2000. The parents of the complainant
spent huge amount in the marriage besides giving a maruti car on demand.
Even then the husband and her in-laws were not happy and satisfied and they
continuously harassed and threatened the complainant for bringing
insufficient dowry articles. As per the complaint the complainant was
continuously subjected to very inhumane mental and physical torture,
beatings and maltreatment by her husband along with his mother Smt.
Krishna Devi, brother Anil Goyal, sisters Ms. Savita, Ms. Veena @ Anjali
her husband Pradeep Goyal, Ms. Kajal and her husband Vineet Mittal and
kept her hungry to put pressure on her to get fulfilled their demands from her
parents. It is further alleged that her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law
and sisters-in-law Ms. Savita and Ms. Veena @ Anjali took her jewellery
ornaments approximately 800 gms on the pretext of keeping it in safe
custody and never returned. The remaining 200 gms jewellery was taken
th
away by her husband when he left the matrimonial home on 24 February,
2003 except approximately 60 gms of jewellery which the complainant was
wearing at that time. It is further alleged that her mother-in-law, sisters-in-
law Savita and Veena @ Anjali and brother-in-law Pradeep Goyal always
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 3 of 6
incited her husband to take divorce from the complainant or to kill her, so
that they could marry him again. According to the complainant, her husband
along with his mother and sister Savita tried to get rid of her and tried that
th
her husband married a divorcee lady Anju Kapoor. On 24 February, 2003
her husband went to his factory and did not return home. She enquired from
her parents about him. However, nobody had any knowledge about him. Her
parents contracted her in-laws about the same and requested them to come at
th
their residence. On 26 February, 2003 her mother-in-law and brother-in-
law Anil Goyal came in the morning and shouted at her parents that they
knew about the whereabouts of her husband and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and
only then they would let them know about the whereabouts of Rakesh, the
husband of the complainant. Anil Goyal further shouted that if the demand
was not fulfilled they would arrange the marriage of Rakesh with the said
lady. In the meantime Pradeep Goyal also came there and shouted at her
father and threatened him with dire consequences. Thus, she sought legal
action against all of them.
5. A perusal of the complaint reveals that there is no specific allegation
against Kajal Mittal and Vineet Mittal except that all the in-laws caused
continuous inhumane mental and physical torture, beating and maltreatment.
There is no allegation of entrustment to either Kajal or Vineet Mittal. Hence
in the facts of the case Kajal and Vineet Mittal are liable to be discharged of
th
the offences under Section 498A/406/34 IPC & impugned order dated 18
August 2010 is liable to be set aside to this extent.
6. Further as regards Ms. Krishna Devi I find no infirmity in the order of
the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate or the Learned Additional Sessions
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 4 of 6
Judge directing the framing of charge under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and
the order dismissing the revision petition therein.
7. As regards Petitioner Anil Goyal there are specific allegations of
demand of dowry and only thereafter letting the complainant and her father
know the whereabouts of her husband. However, there is no allegation of
criminal breach of trust and thus the only offence for which the Petitioner
Anil Goyal can be charged under Section 498A/34 IPC as held by the
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate which order has not been disturbed by the
th
order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 12 April, 2010.
8. As regards Ms. Savita there are clear allegations of harassment, threats
to kill and also entrustment. Thus, I find no infirmity in the order of the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge directing framing of charge under
Section 498A/406/34 IPC against Ms. Savita.
9. As regards Ms. Veena @ Anjali and Pradeep Goyal besides the
general allegations of harassment for demand of dowry there are specific
allegations that they incited her husband that he should divorce her or kill
her so that they can marry him to the other lady with whom he had extra
marital relations, to fetch good dowry articles. As against Pradeep Goyal
there are allegations of threatening the father of the complainant of dire
consequences. Hence both Veena Goyal and Pradeep Goyal are liable to be
charged for offences under Section 498A IPC. There is no specific
allegation of entrustment against Pradeep Goyal and hence no charge for
offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. There are also specific
allegation of entrustment of istridhan to Ms. Veena @ Anjali which has not
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 5 of 6
been returned on demand. Thus, the Petitioner Veena @ Anjali is also liable
to be charged for offence under Section 406 IPC.
10. The petitions and applications are disposed in terms of the conclusions
as above.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 04, 2012
‘ga’
Crl.M.C.Nos. 3304/2010 & 3349/2010 Page 6 of 6