Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04:NORTH-EAST:
KARKARDOOMA: DELHI
CNR No. DLNE01-001361-2024
Criminal Revision petition No. 83/24
1. Rajat Rana s/o Pradeep Kumar
2. Pradeep Kumar Rana
s/o late Sh. Attar Singh
3. Savita Devi
w/o Pradeep Kumar Rana
All permanent residents of:
village Kheri Manihar
District Meerut, UP-250401
All residents of:
H. No. 236, Gali no. 1,
Surya City, Rohta Road,
District Meerut, UP
4. Rajan Rana s/o Pradeep Kumar Rana
Presently at:
c/o Kiran Singh Mahashy Mohalla,
Kakdo Wala, Behsuma Village,
District Meerut, UP ..................Revisionists
Versus
State ..................Respondent
Date of Institution : 15-05-2024
Date of Argument : 20-09-2024
Date of Judgment : 20-09-2024
Crl. Rev. No. 83/24
Rajat Rana & Ors. Vs. State
Page 1
of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of the revision
petition u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. filed against the impugned orders
dated 07-02-2024 and 03-04-2024 by the court of Ms. Arushi
Parwal, Ld. MM (Mahila Court), NE/ KK/ Delhi whereby the Ld.
Trial Court has framed charges against the revisionists Rajan
Rana, Pradeep Kumar Rana and Savita Devi for the offence
punishable u/s 498A/34/406 of IPC and u/s 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, and against the revisionist Rajat Rana for the
offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC, the revisionist Rajan Rana has
also been charged for the offence punishable u/s 377 of IPC.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant Poonam has
filed a complaint addressed to Police Commissioner, Women
Cell claiming that she got married with with revisionist on 10-03-
2015. During marriage, her father has made expenditure beyond
his financial capacity. She has also made allegations of dowry
demand against her in-laws, subjecting her to cruelty in
connection with demand of dowry, eve teasing by her brother in
law, compulsive physical relations against order of nature by the
husband etc. The matter was initially inquired by CAW Cell,
North-East which finally culminated into registration of FIR.
During investigation, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the
complainant was also recorded. After completion of necessary
formalities, chargesheet was filed against the revisionist for the
offences punishable u/s 498A/406/377/504/361/354 IPC and u/s
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Vide order dated 07-02-2024 and
03-04-2024, charges were framed against the revisionist.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has preferred the present
revision and has challenged the impugned orders dated 07-02-
2024 and 03-04-2024, primarily on the following grounds:-
Crl. Rev. No. 83/24
Rajat Rana & Ors. Vs. State
Page 2
of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
(a) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the allegation as
levied are sheer misuse of process of law as same are bald and no
specific date, time and place of respect of the allegation is
mentioned in her said FIR or any evidence has been collected by
the investigating agency during investigation qua the alleged
allegation.
(b) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that
complainant is working in Delhi Police as constable and she has
misused the law by implicating all the family members with the
sole intention to harass, torture and extort money from them.
(c) The Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe in its order dated
07-02-2024 the fact that no offence u/s 377 IPC is made out
against the husband in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India as well as Hon’ble High Courts and further there
is no scientific and medical record have been relied to
substantiate her alleged version or allegation against said
husband.
(d) The Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe in its order dated
03-04-2024 the fact that no offence u/s 354A of IPC is made out
against the brother-in-law (devar) because no scientific and
medical record have been relied to substantiate her alleged
version or allegation against said brother-in-law.
4. This Court has heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for
the revisionist as well as Ld. Addl. PP for State and perused the
trial court record.
5. It is noted that the complainant Poonam has made specific
allegation against the revisionists in her typed complaint, which
was filed before ACP, CAW Cell on 06-08-2018, whereupon
present FIR has been registered. In her complaint as well as in
her statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C., the complainant Poonam has
Crl. Rev. No. 83/24
Rajat Rana & Ors. Vs. State
Page 3
of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
levelled specific allegations against revisionist Rajan Rana,
Pradeep Kumar Rana and Savita Devi of subjecting her to cruelty
by expressing unhappiness over the gifts presented during
marriage. She has also filed list of dowry articles. There is
specific allegation against accused Rajan Rana of forcefully
committing unnatural sex. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the
complainant has alleged that her brother in law namely Rajat
Rana used to eve tease her whenever she used to enter the
kitchen by forcefully hugging her. There is an allegation for
demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs for constructing a boundary of a
plot. It is well settled that veracity or truthfulness of the
statement of the complainant cannot be judged at the stage of
framing of charge. Defence of the accused cannot be considered
at this stage. No opinion with regard to the inconsistency and
vagueness of the statement of complainant, as pointed out by Ld.
Counsel for revisionist, can be formed at this stage.
6. Further, it is also settled law that at the stage of framing of
charge, only the police report as referred to in Section 173
Cr.P.C. is required to be referred to. This aspect of the law has
been adverted to in State Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and
Another V.P. Suryaprakasam; 1999 SCC (Crl.), 373 where
considering the scope of Sections 239 and 240 of the Cr.P.C., it
was held that, "
at the time of framing of charge, what the trial
court is required to, and can consider are only the police report
referred to under Section 173 of the Code and the documents sent
with it". This position of law was reiterated by a three Judge
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs.
Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359.
7. Therefore, what is crystal clear is that at the stage of the
framing of charge, the Court is not at all to look into the possible
Crl. Rev. No. 83/24
Rajat Rana & Ors. Vs. State
Page 4
of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
defences of the accused or the merits of the defences likely to be
taken up the accused. This aspect of framing of charge is to be
considered solely from the point of view of police report as
referred to in Section 173 Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court did not find
any illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 07-02-2024 and 03-
04-2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the revision
petition filed by the revisionist stands dismissed. Trial Court
record be segregated and returned to the Ld. Trial Court with
copy of this judgment and thereafter, revision file be consigned
to Record Room.
Announced In The Open Court
On 20-09-2024
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
KARKARDOOMA/20-09-2024
Crl. Rev. No. 83/24
Rajat Rana & Ors. Vs. State
Page 5
of 5
-- 5 of 5 --