Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-003371-2024
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024
Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri Pranav Khanna
S/o Shri Deepak Khanna,
R/o P-8, 1st Floor, Malka Ganj,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi
….Revisionist/Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State
….Respondent No.1
2. Smt. Heena Malhotra
D/o Shri Mahinder Kumar,
R/o 1/26A, Vijay Nagar,
Delhi-110009
….Respondent No.2
Date of Institution : 06.03.2024
Order Reserved on : 30.09.2024
Order Delivered on : 30.09.2024
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.1 of 12
-- 1 of 12 --
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition
filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC on behalf of
revisionist Pranav Khanna against impugned order dated
30.01.2024 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court) in case FIR
No.624/2021 PS Subzi Mandi under Section 498A/406/34 IPC
whereby applicant / accused Pranav Khanna was charged for the
offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. It is averred that revisionist entered into wedlock with
respondent no.2 on 08.02.2014 according to Hindu Rights and
Ceremonies. Thereafter, FIR dated 15.11.2021 under Section
498A/406/34 IPC was registered against accused Pranav Khanna,
Anita Khanna and Deepak Khanna on the complaint the filed by
respondent no.2 pertaining to which, the police filed the charge-
sheet in the concerned Court.
3. It is further averred that vide detailed order dated
30.01.2024, Ld. Trial Court was pleased to frame charge against
revisionist and aforesaid accused persons under Section
498A/406/34 IPC.
4. It is further averred that Ld. Trial Court has failed to
exercise its judicial discretion on the facts and circumstances of
the case by framing charges upon the revisionist. It is further
averred that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the
allegation in the charge-sheet are vague, fabricated and
concocted. It is further submitted that the allegation does not
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.2 of 12
-- 2 of 12 --
specify the details like dates and specific role of each accused
persons. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to
appreciate that borrowing of old four wheeler vehicle from father
of respondent no.2 cannot be termed as dowry. It is further
submitted that allegations that revisionist and other co-accused
persons forced respondent no.2 to take loan from the bank cannot
be termed as dowry. It is further submitted that respondent no.2
has misleaded the Trial Court by portraying her contribution in
the household work/expenses as cruelty committed by revisionist
and other accused persons. It is further submitted that there are
not specific allegation for the offence under Section 406 IPC as
respondent no.2 nowhere specifically stated as to when, to whom
and what articles / amount was entrusted by her and when it was
demanded back by her. It is prayed that the revision petition be
allowed and order dated 30.01.2024 be set aside and revisionist
be discharged in the present matter.
5. Notice of revision was issued to respondent no.2 on which
she entered her appearance and respondent no.1 is State.
6. Respondents entered their appearance and chose not to file
reply but directly addressed arguments. Respondents vehemently
opposed the present revision petition and submitted that it is filed
merely to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that there
are specific allegations of harassment, cruelty, mental and
physical torture of respondent no.2 at the hands of revisionist and
other accused persons. It is further submitted that there are
specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment against the
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.3 of 12
-- 3 of 12 --
revisionist and other accused persons. It is further submitted that
interrogation report of revisionist by the police officials annexed
with the charge-sheet also supports allegations in question. It
further submitted that all the bills and bank account statements
furnished by respondent no.2 are duly verified by the IO also
supports the allegations in question. It is further submitted that
the verified account statement clearly reflect transfer of amount
from the account of respondent no.2 and her sister to the account
of revisionist. It is further submitted that prima facie all the
allegations are present in the case in hand to frame charge against
revisionist. It is prayed that the revision petition be dismissed
with cost.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused
the record carefully. I have also gone through the authorities
relied upon by both the parties.
8. Before proceedings further, it is necessary to go through
the relevant part of impugned order dated 30.01.2024 which is
reproduced as under:-
“ 30.01.2024
In the light of the aforesaid observations, this
Court is of the considered opinion that there exists
prima facie case against the accused person. No case
is made out to enter into a detailed appreciation of the
evidence intended to be led by the prosecution.
On the perusal of the initial complaint of the
complainant, there are following allegations :- a)
parents of the complainant have given articles in the
marriage alongwith money to the accused persons b) In
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.4 of 12
-- 4 of 12 --
the year 2016, accused no.1 abused and beaten her for
money c) father in law demanded more money d) all
the accused persons abused her in filthy language and
compelled her to leave the matrimonial house e)
accused no.1 demanded money for investing in
business and abused her in front of child and all the
articles lying in the custody of accused persons which
have not been returned to the complainant despite
demand raised by her parents and herself. Accused
no.1 and 3 also pressurized her for taking loan from
banks and abused her for more money. For clearing
debts for Rs.6 Lacs, father in law demanded money in
May 2017. Further in the statement u/s 161 CrPC, it is
mentioned that some of the articles as per the list have
been recovered by the police official an some are still
lying in the possession of the accused persons.
Per contra, accused has stated during the
interrogation that no articles were given at all by the
parents of the complainant and therefore, they are not
in the possession of any of the article.
In view of the above allegations, charge is
accordingly framed against all the accused persons u/s
498A/406/34 IPC as at this stage the dominion of
articles can not be denied with the accused persons.
List for the date already fixed for PE.
(Reetika Jain)
MM-03 (Mahila Court)/Central/Delhi
30.01.2024”
9. It is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge, the
Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to
marshal the evidence and record a finding that the materials collected
by the prosecuting agency are sufficient or not for convicting the
accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for
proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed.
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.5 of 12
-- 5 of 12 --
10. For better appreciation of facts Section 498A IPC is reproduced
as under:-
“Section 498A IPC provides as under;
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine. Explanation - For the purpose of this section,
"cruelty"
means-
(a) 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 life, limb or heath (whether
mental or physical) of the woman: or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any un-lawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet her such demand.”
11. The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a
person subjecting him or her to constant interference or intimidation.
If such intimidation is done with a view to coerce any person and in
this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the
unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to
"harassment" as contemplated by S.498A. Word 'Coercion' means
persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or
threats. Thus to constitute offence following ingredients/tests are
essential:
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.6 of 12
-- 6 of 12 --
“(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either
physically or mentally through constant interference or
intimidation.
(ii) Such act should be with a view to persuade or
compel her to do something which she is legally or
otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to
compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful
demands for any property or valuable security.”
12. Perusal of TCR reveals that revisionist has taken all the
aforesaid pleas, which are taken in the present revision petition before
the Ld. Trial Court and the same has been duly recorded and
considered by the said Court as reflected in the detailed order dated
30.01.2024.
13. Furthermore, perusal of the record/TCR further reveals that
complainant / respondent no.2 had stated that she got married with the
revisionist on 08.02.2014 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
One child born out of said wedlock. Soon after the marriage accused
persons started making unlawful demands from the respondent no.2
and started inflicting mental and physical cruelties on the respondent
no.2. As per the allegations respondent no.2 was beaten up regularly
for the sake of money by the revisionist. There are several instances
of verbal abuse being suffered by the respondent no.2 at the hands of
revisionist and other accused persons as mentioned in the charge-
sheet.
14. So far as Charge U/s 406 IPC is concerned, Section 405 IPC is
reproduced as under:-
Section 405 Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being
in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.7 of 12
-- 7 of 12 --
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly
uses or disposed of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract,
express or implied which he has made touching the
discharge of such trust, or willfully suffer any other
person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.
15. As far as charge U/s 406 IPC is concerned after perusal of the
complaint it is revealed that there are allegations that the parents of
respondent no.2 gave jewellary, costly clothes, furniture and cash etc.
and all the articles and istridhan have been illegally and unlawfully
retained by the revisionist and other accused persons and the list of
dowry articles and expenses of the marriage is enclosed with the
present complaint. There are specific allegations of entrustment of
istridhan articles by the respondent no.2 to revisionist and other
accused persons. It is specifically alleged that accused persons and
revisionist did not return the dowry article and istridhan of the
respondent no.2 and intentionally and deliberately retained the said
articles in their illegal and unlawful custody despite several requests
and demands being made by the respondent no.2 as well as her other
family members and relatives. It is further alleged that all the
istridhan criminally misappropriated by the revisionist and other
accused persons. It is also alleged that respondent no.2 and her family
members demanded the istridhan from the revisionist and other
accused persons, but they flatly refused to returned the same.
16. Perusal of impugned order reveals that it is rightly held by
Ld. MM that
“
On the perusal of the initial complaint of the
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.8 of 12
-- 8 of 12 --
complainant, there are following allegations :- a)
parents of the complainant have given articles in the
marriage alongwith money to the accused persons b) In
the year 2016, accused no.1 abused and beaten her for
money c) father in law demanded more money d) all
the accused persons abused her in filthy language and
compelled her to leave the matrimonial house e)
accused no.1 demanded money for investing in
business and abused her in front of child and all the
articles lying in the custody of accused persons which
have not been returned to the complainant despite
demand raised by her parents and herself. Accused
no.1 and 3 also pressurized her for taking loan from
banks and abused her for more money. For clearing
debts for Rs.6 Lacs, father in law demanded money in
May 2017. Further in the statement u/s 161 CrPC, it is
mentioned that some of the articles as per the list have
been recovered by the police official an some are still
lying in the possession of the accused persons.”
17. Coming now to the case law, while discussing the power
of the revisionist court, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 107,
it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:
“3. ...The revision power under the Code of Criminal
Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual
manner. While exercising such powers the High Court
has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the
manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required
to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when
it is shown that there is a legal bar against the
continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing
of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information
Report even if they are taken at the face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
for which the accused has been charged. This Court in
Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, 2000
CriLJ 746 has held that there is no legal requirement for
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.9 of 12
-- 9 of 12 --
the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for
framing the charges.”
18. Also, the present court have to keep in mind that revisional
jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases
where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest
error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. In Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, 2021
SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as
under:-
“
9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is
extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397
CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts
jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the
regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is
also well settled that while considering the legality,
propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion,
normally the revising court does not dwell at length
upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in
revision considers the material only to satisfy itself
about the legality and propriety of the findings,
sentence and order and refrains from substituting its
own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of
evidence."
19. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysingh Ramrao
Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC
123 wherein it has been observed as under :
“
14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any
relevant material or there is palpable misreading of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.10 of 12
-- 10 of 12 --
aside the order, merely because another view is
possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as
an appellate court. The whole purpose of the
revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the
court to do justice in accordance with the principles of
criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the
court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be
equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of
the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is
shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the
decision is based on no material or where the material
facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the
courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of
their revisional jurisdiction."
20. Applying the aforesaid Principle of law to the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as law as discussed in
preceding paragaraphs, it is crystal clear that Ld. Trial Court has
rightly framed charges against revisionist under Section
498A/406/34 IPC. It cannot be said at this stage that conclusion
arrived by the Ld. Trial Court is unreasonable and unjustified,
calling for interference by the present Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any infirmity or flaw in the
impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the
revision petition is dismissed.
21. Accordingly, Revision Petition is disposed off as
dismissed.
22. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the
merits of the case. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith the
copy of this order.
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.11 of 12
-- 11 of 12 --
23. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Copy of order be given dasti to the revisionist.
Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain)
on 30th day of September, 2024 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 85/2024 Pranav Khanna Vs. State & Anr. Page No.12 of 12
-- 12 of 12 --