Delhi Sessions court "….One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand. The cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A IPC denotes to a continuous process…."
Looking at the allegations they are all from 2003 and so on , so this seems to be a 10 ..12 year OLD case!!
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
Criminal Revision No. 122/14
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 122/14
FIR No. : 25/04
Under Section : 498-A/406/34 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
Police Station : Gokal Puri
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0292662014
In the matter of :-
State …..Revisionist
V E R S U S
1. Ishtqar
S/o. Mohd. Islam,
R/o.F-312, Gali No.10,
Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.
2. Saira
W/o. Zahir,
R/o.F-312, Gali No.10,
Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.
3. Israr
S/o. Mohd. Islam,
R/o.E-302, Gali No.10,
Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.
4. Rahis
S/o. Rafiq,
R/o. Gaon-Shikarpur, PS-Bhorkala,
District-Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. …. Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.09.2014
Date of receiving the case in this court : 25.09.2014
Date of reserving order: 24.03.2015
Date of pronouncement: 07.04.2015
Decision: Revision petition is dismissed
http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No. 122/14
O R D E R
1. This is a criminal revision petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2014, passed by the trial court, in the case titled as State v. Mohsina etc., bearing FIR No. 25/04, PS Gokal Puri, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Vide the impugned order, the trial court discharged accused/respondents herein namely Ishtqar, Saira, Israr and Rahis for offence under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The relationship of the complainant Shabnam with the accused persons is as follows :-
i. Mohsina – Sister-in-law (Jethani)
ii. Farida – Sister-in-law (Jethani)
iii. Ansar – Brother-in-law Devar
iv. Ishtikar – brother-in-law (Jeth)
v. Sayra – Sister-in-law (Nanad)
vi. Rehana – Sister-in-law (Devrani)
vii. Rahis – Brother-in-law (Nandoi)
viii.Jahira – Sister-in-law (Nanad)
ix. Mohammad Islam – Father-in-law (Sasur)
x. Mehboob – Husband (since PO)
xi. Israr – Brother-in-law (Jeth) and
xii. Hamiden – Mother-in-law (Saas)
3. Briefly stated, the case set up by prosecution is that accused Mohsina, Farida, Ansar, Ishtikar, Sayra, Rehana, Rahis, Jahira, Mohammad Islam, Mehboob, Israr and Hamiden had subjected complainant Shabnam with cruelty by their willful conduct and by making unlawful demands of dowry in furtherance of their common intention, during subsistence of marriage of complainant.
4. The revisionist/State has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds :-
i. That impugned order is illegal, improper, unjustified and against the established principle of law as settled by hon’ble Apex Court of India and is liable to be modified.
ii. That the trial court has grossly erred in the basic law on the point of framing of charges as laid down by hon’ble Supreme Court of India “that roving enquiry is not required at this stage and further held that charge can be framed even on strong suspicion” and reliance was placed on the judgment pronounced by hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) (9) SCC368. Another case law was cited i.e. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) (4) SCC 6559, passed by Supreme Court, to submit that “at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.”
iii. The trial court failed to appreciate the complaint/statement of the complainant, wherein accused/respondents herein have been named, which reflects that a prima facie case under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against them and the same has been ignored by ld. MM.
iv. That the serious miscarriage of justice will be occasioned in the present case, if the present revision petition is not allowed. 5. The respondents challenged the revision petition on the grounds that the case was falsely lodged against them. They relied upon the judgment passed by High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 7262/2006 decided on 23.02.2007 in the case titled as Smt. Neera Singh v. State, wherein it was observed that “vague allegation as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of the husband cannot be accepted by any Court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charges.” They also referred to the judgment passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sarita v. R. Ram Chandra (I) (2003) DMC 37. They supported the impugned order, vide which the respondents were discharged by the trial court.
6. I have given due attention to the rival contentions and to the case laws cited before me as well as the materials placed on the trial court record. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Analysis of evidence:-
7. From the chargesheet filed by IO, I find that the case of prosecution is based only on the complaint made by the complainant namely Ms. Sabnam. In her complaint given to ld. ACP, CAW Seelampur, the complainant made allegations that after her marriage with Sh. Mehboob, she was used to be beaten by her husband at the instance of her in-laws. She further alleged that on 15.05.2002, she was beaten by Sayra, Jahira, Mehboob, Israr and Mohsina due to which she went back to her parental house and after about 5 months she was brought back at her matrimonial house. In the Panchaayat, Israr, Ishtikar, Mehboob, Islam, Jahira and Rahis had promised that she would not be physically assaulted. She further alleged that there was no change in the behaviour of her in-laws and they always used to make demand for money and dowry. She further alleged that her brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws had got the dowry articles broken through their children and themselves. She also alleged about another instance of 28.04.2003 stating that that night her father-in-law, husband, Jahira, Rahis, Ishtikar, Ansar, Hamiden, Sayra, Mohsina and Farida had beaten her and they had thrown her out of the house. She further alleged that her in-laws used to torture her to bring the dowry and they did not allow her to live in the matrimonial house.
FINDINGS:-
8. From the aforesaid allegations made by the complainant, I do find that she had made very vague and general kind of allegations involving name of all family members of her husband, to allege that they used to harass her to bring more dowry. There are apparently no specific allegations against the respondents, which could prima facie show that the respondents used to torture and harass her for the purpose of bringing dowry or to satisfy any other unlawful demand. One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand. The cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A IPC denotes to a continuous process.
9. From the allegations made by the complainant, even I am unable to find any case of continuous torture, if committed by any of the respondents for the purpose of making demand of dowry or any other unlawful demand. It is also to be established that the torture or harassment caused to the complainant was to such an extent so as to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to the complainant. All such ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not satisfied by the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, present
10.Trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back to the trial court.
File of revision be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 07.04.2015 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
(This order contains 6 pages)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1aZeTwN
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist
my2centsworth 