Final Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (R) No. 05/2024
Rajni
d/o Late Sh. Darshan Lal Bhatia
w/o Late Sh. Bharat Bhushan
r/o 179/2-B, Gali no.10,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. ........…. Revisionist.
Versus
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. Smt. Geeta
3. Pushp Kumar
4. Simmi
5. Harwinder Sharma
Respondents no.2 to 5 all r/o
178, ground floor, Singha Chowk,
Gurugram, Haryana. …………. Respondents.
Date of filing : 03.01.2024
Date of arguments : 14.03.2026
Date of order : 18.03.2026
O R D E R
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the
revisionist seeking to set aside the order dated 28.06.2023
passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01),
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 1/12
-- 1 of 12 --
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi, whereby the respondents
have been discharged for the offences under section
498A/406 IPC, in FIR No. 116/20 Police Station Farsh Bazar
registered against them at the behest of
revisionist/complainant Rajni.
2. Respondent no. 1 is State, respondent no.2 is mother-
in-law (
saas) of the revisionist/complainant, respondent no.3
is her brother-in-law (
Dewar), respondent no.4 is sister-in-
law (
Nand) and respondent no.5 is husband of respondent
no.4 (
Nandoi of complainant). Husband of
revisionist/complainant has expired on 22.01.2017 by
committing suicide after the separation of the parties
regarding which FIR no. 48/17 Police Station Palam Vihar
under section 306 IPC has been registered against the
complainant, trial of which is pending in the concerned court
of Gurugram, Haryana.
3. The FIR of this case was registered at the behest of
revisionist Rajni on her complaint dated 29.06.2019 filed by
her at Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Seema Puri, Delhi
levelling allegations of harassment and cruelty upon her by
the respondents no.2 to 5.
4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet under
Section 498-A/406/34 IPC was filed before Ld. Trial court.
5. Vide impugned order dated 28.06.2023, the Ld. Trial
Court discharged all the accused (respondents no. 2 to 5
herein) for the offences under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC.
For the offence under Section 498-A IPC,the Ld. trial court
observed that the complaint is vague containing no specific
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 2/12
-- 2 of 12 --
allegations of dowry demand and has been belatedly filed by
her since the last act of cruelty as per the complaint was in
August 2016, but the complaint alleging the offences was
filed by her in June 2019. For the offence under section 406
IPC, Ld. Trial Court observed that complainant had not
raised demand for return of her articles allegedly possessed
by the respondents no 2 to 5.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, revisionist has filed
the present revision on the following grounds:-
(i) The order is based on surmises and conjectures.
(ii) Specific allegations of dowry demand are contained in
para no. 3,4,6,7 to 9, 10 to 12, 16 & 19 of the complaint
dated 28.06.2019 on the basis of which FIR was registered
but the Ld. Trial Court has completely ignored those
allegations and erroneously observed in the impugned order
that complaint is vague sans no specific allegations.
7. Ld. Addl. PP duly assisted by Ld. counsel for Rajni
has argued that material on record clearly makes out the
prima facie case against the respondents for the offences
they were charge-sheeted. It was argued that Ld. trial court
has not properly appreciated that the compliant dated
29.06.2019 of Rajni contains specific instances of cruelty
upon her by the respondents and erroneously discharged the
respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that at
the stage of framing of charge, there must be prima facie
material on record to proceed against the accused persons for
the alleged offences; however, in the present case, the
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 3/12
-- 3 of 12 --
chargesheet does not make out any offence whatsoever. He
submitted that neither Rajni's prime complaint nor the
statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.
PC, disclose the commission of any criminal offence by any
of the respondents. It was argued thar bare perusal of the
chargesheet reveals no allegation of dowry demand or
cruelty upon Rajni to such an extent as to drive her to
commit suicide or cause grievous injury to herself.
According to the learned counsel, every allegation in the
chargesheet only reflects the normal wear and tear of
matrimonial life, and no criminality can be attributed on the
basis of such allegations, therefore, the learned counsel
urged that there is no error in the impugned order.
9. I have considered the arguments of Ld. counsel for
revisionist Rajni, Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for
respondents as well as perused the written arguments filed
on her behalf. Entire record perused.
10. This is the revision against the order of discharging
the respondents at the stage of the charge, therefore, the
settled principles of law to be taken into consideration at the
stage of charge are relevant to be discussed at first place.
11. It is a settled position of law that for framing a charge
not only suspicion but grave suspicion is required. The
purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the
clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the
accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial as
observed in
V.C. Shukla V State through C.B.I., 1980 Supp
SCC 92. The prosecution is required to establish a prima
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 4/12
-- 4 of 12 --
facie case before a charge can be framed. The Supreme
Court in
Union of India V Prafulla Kumar Samal & another,
(1979) 3 SCC 4 considered scope of inquiry at the stage of
framing of charge as per Section 227 of the Code in Sessions
criminal trial and observed as under: -
"10(1) That the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under Section 227
of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and
weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out.
10(2) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained the Court
will be, fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial.
10(3) The test to determine a prima facie case
would naturally depend upon the facts of each
case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of
universal application. By and large however if two
views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him
while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be fully
within his right to discharge the accused.
10(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under
Section 227 of the Code the Judge cannot act
merely as a Post office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case
and so on. This however does not mean that the
Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as
if he was conducting a trial."
12. Reverting backs to the present case: - Admittedly, the
revisionist got married with one Sh. Bharat Bhushan on
06.11.2011 according to Hindu Rights and Ceremonies; there
is no child from this wedlock; in August 2016 Bharat
Bhushan and complainant got separated, thereafter,
She
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 5/12
-- 5 of 12 --
filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter be referred as “DV
Act” ) against respondents no. 2 to 5 and also against her
husband but during pendency of said complaint, he expired
on 22.01.2017 committing suicide regarding which FIR No.
48/17 PS Palam Vihar under Section 306 IPC dated
22.01.2017 has been registered against the
revisionist/complainant lodged at the behest of her in-laws.
13. In June 2019, almost after three years, the complainant
filed the complaint against the respondents at the CAW Cell,
alleging demand of dowry, harassment and mental torture
upon her by her late husband and in-laws (respondents no. 2
to 5) which ultimately culminated in the registration of the
FIR in this case.
14. The Hon'ble superior courts in catena of judgments
have observed that tendency has developed that in dowry
demand cases the entire family of husband even his distinct
relatives are roped into without there being any specific
allegations against them, therefore courts are expected to be
more careful while dealing with husband's other family
members especially, distinct relatives. Reference be made to
Digamber and others VS. State of Maharashtra, SLP No.
(criminal) 2122/2020 decided by Hon'ble Apex court on
20/12/2024, relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
" A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognized fact,
borne out of judicial experience, that there is
often a tendency to implicate all the members of
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 6/12
-- 6 of 12 --
the husband's family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalized and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularized allegations cannot form the basis
for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise
caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family
members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to
6, who are the members of the family of
appellant No.1 have been living in different cities
and have not resided in the matrimonial house of
appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of
the process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them."
15. In the instant case, it is evident that the
revisionist/complainant has deliberately concealed material
facts from this Court. During the course of arguments, it was
brought to the notice of this Court that after her marriage, the
complainant initially resided at her matrimonial home in
Ludhiana, Punjab. However, within 2–3 months of marriage,
she along with her husband shifted to Gurugram, where both
resided together, separately from respondent no.2 (the
mother-in-law) and respondent no.3 (brother-in-law/dewar).
16. Similarly, respondent no.4 (the sister-in-law/Nanad)
was married to respondent no.5 much prior to the
complainant’s marriage with late Bharat Bhushan. Both
respondents no.4 and 5 have been residing in Rewari,
Haryana since their marriage, therefore, had no occasion to
reside with or interfere in the matrimonial life of the
complainant.
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 7/12
-- 7 of 12 --
17. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 03.02.2026,
the learned JMFC, while dismissing the complainant’s
petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, observed that
during cross-examination the complainant herself admitted
that she and her husband had shifted from Ludhiana to
Gurugram within 2–3 months of marriage. These facts were
crucial to assess the extent of involvement, if any, of the
respondents in the alleged acts of cruelty. The suppression of
these material facts by the revisionist, coupled with lately
filing of the complaint, casts grave suspicion on the veracity
of her allegations. The complainant has failed to establish
that respondents no.2 to 5 were in a position to subject her to
cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC. The complaint
does not disclose when the respondents allegedly visited her
or committed acts of cruelty.
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
Payal Sharma v. State of
Punjab 2024 SCC ONLINE SC, while relying upon the
cases of ‘
Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. : (2012) 10 SCC
741 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar : (2022) 6 SCC
599’ had noted as under:
“In the decision in
Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.,
this Court held that mere casual reference of the
names of the family members in a matrimonial
dispute without allegation of active involvement in
the matter would not justify taking cognizance
against them overlooking the tendency of over
implication viz., to draw the entire members of the
household in the domestic quarrel resulting in
matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon
after the wedding. In the decision in
Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court
quashed proceedings in so far as family members of
the husband on the ground that the allegations
against them are general and ominous in nature.
In
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 8/12
-- 8 of 12 --
matters like the one at hand when relatives not
residing in the same house where the alleged victim
resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by
merely looking into the question where the accused
is a person falling within the ambit of the expression
‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but
should also consider whether it is a case of over
implication or exaggerated version solely to
implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main
accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of
this Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, wherein
after considering the statutory provisions and the
earlier decisions, this Court referred to various
categories of cases where the inherent powers under
Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High
Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among such
categories is where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent man could ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against an accused.”
19. Apparently, none of the respondents, except the
husband of the complainant (who has since expired), ever
resided with her. The complainant has made general and
vague allegations against the respondents in her complaint
dated 29.06.2019 that her in-laws used to misbehave with
her, manhandled her, passed taunts, assaulted her, and
demanded dowry. However, she has failed to specify the
place, date, or time of such alleged incidents. The complaint
does not disclose when the respondents allegedly visited her
or committed acts of cruelty. Mere reference to certain years
or few festivals, without concrete details, cannot constitute
sufficient material to frame charges under Section 498A IPC.
For an offence under Section 498A IPC, the allegations must
be of such gravity that they are likely to drive the victim to
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 9/12
-- 9 of 12 --
commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life or health, but
here, there are no such allegations.
20. On perusal of the chargesheet, it is evident that no
specific allegation or incident of harassment or cruelty has
been attributed to any of the respondents which could be said
to be of such a nature as contemplated under Section 498A
IPC. The allegations are omnibus in nature and do not
disclose any act that would amount to cruelty within the
meaning of the provision. The record does not reveal grave
suspicion against the respondents, which is a necessary
precondition for framing of charge under Section 498A IPC.
21. Accordingly, the material placed on record is
insufficient to proceed against respondents no.2 to 5 under
Section 498-A IPC.
22. The respondents were also charge sheeted for the
offence under section 406 IPC. The essential ingredients for
establishing an offence of criminal breach of trust as defined
in section 405 IPC are:
[i] entrusting any person with property or with any dominion
over property;
[ii] the person entrusted with the property, dishonestly
misappropriating or converting to his own use that property;
or dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully
suffering any direction of law prescribing the mode in which
such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made
touching the discharge of such trust.
23. The Supreme Court in the matter of
The
Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 10/12
-- 10 of 12 --
Bengal Vs. S.K. Roy 36 held that there are two distinct parts
involved in the commission of the offence of criminal breach
of trust. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in
relation to the property over which dominion or control is
acquired by the accused. The second is misappropriation or
dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the
terms of the obligation created.
24. The question for consideration is whether the
chargesheet discloses the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 406 IPC against the respondents. The
chargesheet records that the complainant was married to late
Bharat Bhushan on 06.11.2011. It is alleged that on
08.11.2011, at the behest of her mother-in-law, her husband
and sister-in-law snatched her jewelry. She has merely made
a vague assertion that her jewelry was not returned, without
mentioning any specific date, time, or occasion when she
demanded its return from the respondents. Though, she has
stated that in March 2019 she visited her in-laws’ house and,
upon demanding her jewelry, the same was not returned to
her and instead her brother-in-law misbehaved with her.
Significantly, this alleged incident was never reported to any
authority.
25. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant has not
resided with the respondents since 2011. During this long
period, there is no whisper on record that she ever demanded
return of her jewelry from the respondents. The record
further shows that between August 2016 (when she separated
from her husband) and April 2017 she had no contact with
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 11/12
-- 11 of 12 --
the respondents, as she herself admitted in paragraph 14 of
her complaint dated 29.06.2019 that she was not even aware
of the death of her husband and father-in-law, which she
only came to know in April 2017 when her mother-in-law
and sister-in-law appeared in court in connection with the
DV Act proceedings.
26. The learned trial court has rightly observed that the
chargesheet is silent as to when the complainant raised any
demand for return of her jewelry allegedly possessed by the
respondents. In the absence of specific averments regarding
entrustment, demand, and refusal, the essential ingredients of
criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC are not
satisfied. Accordingly, no offence under Section 406 IPC is
made out against the respondents.
27. In view of aforesaid discussion, this court finds no
infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed. The
impugned order is upheld.
Copy of this order along with TCR be sent to Ld. Trial
Court for information.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Charu Aggarwal)
Court on 18.03.2026 ASJ-02/E-Court/Shahdara
KKD Court, Delhi.
Cr. Rev. No. 05/2024 Rajni Vs. State and ors. Page No. 12/12
-- 12 of 12 --