Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 1 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR no. DLCT01-016119-2023
Cr Rev 604/2023
In the matter:
Amrita Jain W/o Shri Pradip Kumar Jain,
R/o 84, Jawahar Nagar Colony,
Bhelupur, Varanasi-221010
Presently At:
C/o Shri Pradip Kumar Jain
Director Bungalow,
NIT Patna Campus,
Ashok Rajpath, Patna-800005
…..Revisionist
Versus
1. State of NCT
2. Neha Jain D/o Sh. Vijay Gupta
R/o House no. H-460, Ist Floor,
New Rajinder Nagar, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
…….Respondents
Date of Institution :09.11.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments :28.10.2024
Date of orders :19.11.2024
FIR no. 75/2019
PS Rajinder Nagar
&
CNR no. DLCT01-013999-2024
Cr Rev 357/2024
In the matter:
Pradip Kumar Jain S/o Late Sh. S. Das Jain Aran,
R/o 84, Jawahar Nagar Colony,
Bhelupura, Varanasi-221010,
Presently posted at Direct NIT Patna,
Patna Campus, Ashok Rajpath, Patna
…...Revisionist
Versus
-- 1 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 2 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
1. State of NCT of Delhi
2. Ms. Neha Jain d/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta,
R/o House no. H-460, Ist Floor,
New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
…..Respondents
Date of Institution :07.09.2024
Date of conclusion of arguments :28.10.2024
Date of orders :19.11.2024
PS Rajinder Nagar
19.11.2024
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the above said two criminal
revision petitions as both the criminal revision petitions have
been preferred u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C. against the common
impugned orders dated 10.10.2023 passed by the ld. Trial court.
2. The orders dated 10.10.2023 came to be passed by the ld. Trial
court in the matter arising out of FIR No. 75/2019 dated
18.05.2019 u/s 406/498A of the IPC PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.
3. The factual matrix involved in both the criminal revision
petitions is verbatim the same except the fact that the criminal
revision petition bearing CR no. 357/2024 is accompanied by an
application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
The revisionists in both the above said revision petitions are the
husband and wife. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain, who is the revisionist
in criminal revision petition no. 357/2024 is the husband of the
-- 2 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 3 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
revisionist Ms. Amrita Jain in criminal revision petition no.
604/2023.
4. The factual controversy, as culled out from the impugned orders
dated 10.10.2023 and the entire TCR is that after the filing of the
charge sheet before the ld. Trial court vide orders dated
21.06.2021, the ld. Trial court issued the notice to the accused
persons but subsequently, protest petition u/s 173(a) R/w Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant and thereafter,
the orders dated 10.10.2023 were passed by the ld. Trial court
holding therein that on 21.06.2021 merely the notice was issued
to the accused persons and there was no formal or specific orders
taking the cognizance in the present case. The ld. Addl. PP for the
State argued before the ld. Trial court that there were specific
allegations against the revision namely Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain
and Ms. Amrita Jain but despite the same, they were put in
column no. 12. The ld. Addl. PP for the State also pointed out that
at the time of scrutiny of the charge sheet, the then, ld. Addl. PP
for the State also raised the same objection but the IO filed the
charge sheet without removing the objections and kept Pradeep
Kumar Jain and Amrita Jain in column no. 12. It was prayed that
apart from the accused Garvit Jain(husband of the complainant),
summons be issued against the revisionists Pradeep Kumar Jain
and Amrita Jain.
-- 3 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 4 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
5. Perusal of the impugned orders dated 10.10.2023 reveals that the
ld. Trial court relied upon the emails dated 07.03.2017 and
07.04.2017 levelling specific allegations of dowry demand. The
email dated 07.08.2014, the transcript of which was filed by the
IO, was also filed on record which was sent by Sh. Pradeep Jain
mentioning therein that in future, no demand of dowry shall be
made, indicating that in past, the demand of dowry was made.
6. Relying upon the above said emails and the contents of the
complaint lodged by the complainant, the ld. Trial court came to
the conclusion that there was sufficient material available on
record to proceed against the revisionist Pradeep Kumar Jain and
Amrita Jain as there were specific allegations against them
pertaining to cruelty, dowry demand and misappropriation of
istridhan/ jewellery articles and therefore, the cognizance of the
offence u/s 498A/406/34 IPC was taken against the revisionist
Pradeep Kumar Jain and Amrita Jain as well.
7. Now aggrieved by the orders dated 10.10.2023, the above said
two criminal revision petitions have been preferred by the
revisionists Pradeep Kumar Jain and Amrita Jain primarily
mentioning therein that the ld. Trial court had no power to take
re-cognizance of the offence, once the cognizance of the offence
was taken by the ld. Trial court vide orders dated 21.06.2021. It
has been further stated that the impugned orders dated
-- 4 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 5 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
10.10.2023 amounts to review of its own order which is illegal
and arbitrary. The revisionists have relied upon the ratio of the
judgment dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the matter titled as Ramakant Singh & Ors. Vs.
the State of Jharkhand and Anr. passed in criminal appeal no.
3484/2023 arising out of SLP(Crl.) no. 9228/2023.
8. The revisionists have further stated that there is a increased
tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498A IPC as the
instruments to settle the personal scores against the husband and
his relatives now a days. The revisionists have relied upon the
ratio of the judgments titled as Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union
of India & Ors.; Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of
Bihar; Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.; Rajesh
Sharma Vs. The State of UP etc.
9. The criminal revision petition bearing no. 357/2024 filed by the
revisionist Pradeep Kumar Jain is also accompanied by an
application seeking the condonation of delay of approximately
ten months on the ground that the revisionist is a senior citizen
and suffering from ailments. It has been further stated that the
revisionist in the present revision petition was under the
impression that he was also the revisionist in the revision petition
filed on behalf of his wife Amrita Jain.
-- 5 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 6 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
10. In the reply to the application seeking the condonation of delay,
the respondent no. 2 i.e. the complainant has stated and argued
that no cogent explanation has been furnished for condonation of
delay. It has been prayed that the application seeking the
condonation of delay be dismissed.
11. On merits, ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has argued that
there are specific allegations against the revisionist and as such,
the impugned orders dated 10.10.2023 have been rightly passed.
The respondent no. 2 has relied upon the ratio of the judgment
dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the matter titled as Nahar Singh Vs. The State of UP in
Criminal Appeal no. 443/2022 arising out of SLP(Crl.) no.
8447/2015. The respondent no. 2 has prayed that both the above
said criminal revision petitions be dismissed.
12.I have carefully gone through the entire material available on
record and heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the
revisonists, that of the ld. Addl. PP for the State/ respondent no. 1
and that of the ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well. I have
also meticulously perused the TCR and gone through the written
arguments placed on record by the ld. Counsel for the
revisionists. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the
caselaw relied upon by both the parties.
-- 6 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 7 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
13.First of all, coming to the application seeking the condonation of
delay of approximately ten months filed by the revisionist
Pradeep Kumar Jain, it is true that photocopies of the medical
prescription of the revisionist reveals that the revisionist was
suffering from some ailments and his NCCT KUB was done but
it has to be seen that the revisionist Ms. Sangeeta Jain is the wife
of the revisionist Pradeep Kumar Jain. If the revision petition
could be filed by Amrita Jain in time, I am of the opinion that the
revision petition could have been filed by the revisionist Pradeep
Kumar Jain in time. To my mind, it has been rightly argued by
the ld. Counsel for the respondents the no cogent explanation has
been furnished for condonation of delay of 10 months and as
such, the application seeking the condonation of delay filed by
the revisionist Pradeep Kumar Jain in criminal revision petition
no. 357/2024 is hereby dismissed.
14.Now coming to the merits, it is true that in a catena of judgments,
it has been held that there is a increasing tendency of roping in
the relatives of the husband in the matrimonial cases u/s
498A/406 of the IPC with a view to settle personal scores but in
the case in hand, besides the contents of the complaint and that of
the charge sheet, the ld. Trial court has relied upon the emails
dated 07.03.2017, 07.04.2017 and 07.08.2014. I have gone
through the transcript of the email dated 07.08.2014 allegedly
sent by the revisionist Pradeep Jain which specifically states that
-- 7 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 8 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
in future, no demand of dowry shall be made. To my mind, the ld.
Trial court has rightly come to the conclusion, in the impugned
orders dated 10.10.2023, that the above said wordings used in the
above said email, irresistibly leads to the conclusion that demand
of dowry was made in the past.
15.The authenticity and genuineness of the emails placed on record
can be ascertained only after evidence and trial but I am of the
opinion that at this stage, the ld. Trial court has rightly held in the
impugned orders dated 10.10.2023 that there are specific
allegations against both the revisionists pertaining to the cruelty,
dowry demand and misappropriation of istridhan/ jewellery
articles.
16.Coming to the next submission of the revisionist to the effect that
once the cognizance was taken on 21.06.2021 by the ld. Trial
court, cognizance could not have been taken again. I am of the
opinion that the above said submission of both the revisionists is
correct to the extent that cognizance has to be taken only once but
it has to be seen that the ld. Trial court in the impugned orders
dated 10.10.2023 has held that merely notice was issued to the
accused persons on 21.06.2021 and there are no specific orders
for taking the cognizance. I have gone through the TCR. The
ordersheet dated 21.01.2021 passed by the ld. Trial court reveals
that merely notice was issued to the accused persons. It has not
-- 8 of 9 --
Cr Rev 604/2023 Amrita Jain Vs. State Of NCT
& FIR no. 75/2019 PS Rajinder Nagar Page no. 9 of 9
Cr Rev 357/2024 Pradip Kumar Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
been mentioned anywhere either in the orders dated 21.06.2021
or even after that the cognizance of the offence was taken only
against the husband Garvit Jain.
17.In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the opinion that
the revisionists have failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or
impropriety in the impugned orders dated 10.10.2023.
Resultantly, the both the above said criminal revision petitions
stand dismissed.
18.A copy of this order be kept separately in both the files of the
revision petitions.
19.File of the present criminal revision petitions be consigned to
record room, after necessary compliance. Common TCR be sent
back to the ld. Trial court along with a copy of this order.
Announced in the Open Court
(Order contains 9 pages)
(Raj Kumar)
ASJ-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
19.11.2024
-- 9 of 9 --