Daily Archives: March 18, 2017

High court affirms #discharge of #relatives from #fake498a case !! speaks of #misuse 

Punjab & Haryana High Court Mukesh Rani Vs State of Haryana
Advocates Appeared: 
For the Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate. 

For the , Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, AAG, Haryana.
Nirmal Singh, J. – 
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1 vide which respondents 2 and 3 were discharged by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana vide order dated 24.4.1996 Annexure P-2 vide which the revision petition filed by the State has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
2. The facts of the case are that on the complaint of Mukesh Rani a case under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506, 34 IC was registered against Sukhdev, Krishan, Bharto, Kalawanti and Ram Niwas, on the allegations that they have been harassing the complainant for bringing Refrigerator, Scooter and cash amounting to Rs. 50,000 for the purchase of land. After the completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the evidence on record discharged Ram Niwas and Kalawanti whereas other accused were charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 506, 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the State preferred a revision petition which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat who vide order dated 26.3.1998 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the orders of Courts below the present petition has been preferred.
3. I have heard Shri Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Shri Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are palpably erroneous. He submitted that at the time of framing the charge, the Courts are not to see whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted. He submitted that at the time of framing the charge, only a prima facie case is to be seen. If from the evidence on record, a prima facie case is made out, then a charge is to be framed. He submitted that from the evidence on record, it has transpired that there is a prima facie case against respondents 2 and 3. He submitted that the petitioner was harassed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 alongwith their co-accused on account of demand of dowry. They were demanding scooter and refrigerator. He further submitted that the dowry articles have been recovered from the house of respondent No. 2. He submitted that these facts have been overlooked by the learned trial Court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. There is no dispute regarding proposition of law putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of framing the charge, the trial court is not to go into the merits of the case and only a prima facie case is to be seen. At that stage, it is not to be seen whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted. At the same time, if the allegations are vague and from the complaint itself, if shows that the accused has been falsely implicated then the charge is not to be framed. If the charge is framed it will tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance can be placed upon Satyabir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1993(2) RCR(Crl.) 520 (P&H) : 1993(2) CLR 249 , Parveen Kumari v. State of Punjab and others, 1994(1) RCR(Crl.) 407 (P&H) : 1994(1) CLR 53 , Madhu Bala Mahajan v. Sunayana Mahajan, 1991(2) CLR 227.
6. In the instant case respondent No. 2 is the husband of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 is the sister of husband of the complainant. In the FIR, it has not been specifically mentioned what dowry articles were entrusted to respondents 2 and 3 at the time of marriage. If no article has been entrusted to respondents 2 and 3, then no case under Section 406 is made out. It is also not the case of the complainant that respondents 2 and 3 are residing with the husband of the complainant. The respondents have placed on record the document showing that they are employed as teachers and are living separately in village Bambla from the complainant and her husband Satyadev. Even on the date when the alleged occurrence took place respondents were present in their school i.e. on 7.1.1994.
7. The provisions of Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 113-A and 113-B in the Evidence Act were added by the legislature, in its wisdom, for the protection of women but these provisions are being mis-used day in and day out. Whenever there is a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, for the fault of the husband, other relations of the husband i.e. brothers, sisters and parents, are also roped in the litigation on the allegation of demand of dowry, whether they are living joint or separate. Sometimes, the parents who are aged about 80 to 90 years and unable to walk or talk and the sisters living at far off places in the matrimonial house are also involved. In such like situation, the courts while framing charge should be very cautious. Charge should be framed when there is cogent and convincing evidence. If on the face of the complaint it shows that complaint is false, charge should not be framed. In the instance case, there is evidence that respondent No. 3 who is the sister of the husband of the complainant was living separate with her husband-respondent No. 2 in a different village and were employed as teacher, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly discharged respondents 2 and 3 by observing as under :- “I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring a prime facie case against these two accused persons particularly when there is no statement of any eye witness of the public of village Jasrana u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to support the contention of the complainant, about the presence in the village Jasrana, while they are serving as teacher in Distt. Bhiwani, prior to the marriage of the complainant with accused Satyadev, as stated by them, at the bar, so the authorities of law quoted by ld. APP as 1986 AIR 2046, 1989(2) CLR 430, (sic) 1980 SC 52 and 1999(2) CCJ 480 are not applicable to the facts of the present case with regards to the aforesaid two accused persons for which, relying upon the authorities of law quoted by ld. defendant counsel referred to above, both the said person namely Ram Niwas and Kalawati are hereby discharged.”
For the reasons mentioned above, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned orders passed by the learned Courts below. Hence this petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.

#Fake #498a implicating every member of Husbsnd’s family #quashed! Punjab-Haryana HC

“….Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice….”0

“….It cannot be ignored that every member of the family of the complainant’s husband has been implicated in this case. The allegations made are vague and general and for that reason no offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is made out against the accused…”
#498aQUASH #PUNJAB_HC_quash

#Fake #498a #quashed .. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab-Haryana High Court


Harsh Vardhan Arora vs Smt. Kavita Arora on 19 February, 2002


Equivalent citations: II (2002) DMC 22
Author: R Kathuria
Bench: R Kathuria
JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J.
1. The petitioners seek quashing of complaint dated 23.7.1994 (Annexure P-3) filed by Kavita Arora under Sections 406 and 498-A, I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and the subsequent proceedings taken therein.
2. Harsh Vardhan Arora, his father Ved Parkash Arora, brothers Karmal Arora and Vijay Arora, Smt. Vina wife of Kamal Arora and Smt. Kanchan wife of Vijay Arora had visited the house of the father of the complainant on 2.2.1986 at the ring ceremony. On the said ceremony the parents of the complainant spent Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter the marriage of complainant with Harsh Vardhan Arora was performed at Kanpur on 19.4.1986. An expenditure of Rs. 80,000/- was incurred for the reception of the Barat. Out of this wedlock, one female child was born. After one week of the marriage all the above named accused came to the house of the parents of the complainant at Amritsar and the dowry articles detailed in the list enclosed with the complaint were entrusted to them. They were specifically informed that these articles were meant for the use of the complainant. The accused stayed 2-3 days at Amritsar and thereafter left for Kanpur along with dowry articles. Right from the inception of the marriage the accused used to taunt the complainant, for insufficiency of dowry and harassed and coerced her to force her parents to arrange for the cash amount and additional dowry articles. She was subjected to beating by all the accused on 3-4 occasions. Father of the complainant visited the accused at Kanpur to persuade the accused not to give beating to the complainant. Initially the complainant remained in the house of the accused upto 28.5.1988 and during this period she was pressed to bring V.C.R., Scooter and cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- which they were expecting at the time of marriage of the complainant. During this period she was also taunted for giving birth to a female child. Reference was made to set her ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body and to force her to commit suicide. The complainant ultimately left the house of the accused on 28.5.1993 and thereafter nobody came to fetch her. Under these circumstances the complaint was filed. http://Vinayak.wordpress.com ; https://twitter.com/atmwithdick/
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. The Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Basically it would depend on fact situation of each case which would enable the Court after reading the complaint as a whole whether allegations made therein at their face value bring out the ingredients of the offence or whether these do not constitute the offence for which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and in the later case the Court would be justified in quashing the complaint.
5. In the present case the facts detailed in the complaint have been noticed above. Omnibus allegations had been made against all the accused in respect of demand of dowry, harassment, torture and beating given to her during the period she stayed in the matrimonial home. No specific date, month or year had been specified when these incidents had taken place. It cannot be ignored that every member of the family of the complainant’s husband has been implicated in this case. The allegations made are vague and general and for that reason no offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. is made out against the accused.
6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners-accused that the complainant is guilty of suppressing the material facts. After the marriage of the complainant was solemnised with Harsh Vardhan Arora on 19.4.1986 at Kanpur and the complainant gave birth to a female child on 27.3.1987, she was taken away by the parents of the complainant when they suddenly came to Kanpur on 29.5.1988 on the pretext that she was to attend the marriage of her relation. Thereafter she never returned to the matrimonial home despite efforts made by the husband of the complainant. It was also pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioners that a divorce petition was filed by the husband on 6.4.1991 in which the complainant had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 31.7.1991 claiming interim maintenance which had been granted to the minor daughter of the complainant @ Rs. 500/- per month but not to the complainant as per order dated 20.8.1993. The petition was ultimately accepted on 7.9.1993. Another civil suit was filed by the complainant for the recovery of Rs. 7,20,000/- as an indigent person on 16.11.1992 which was dismissed on 10.10.1994. The facts highlighted as such cannot be gone into. For the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, the facts as stated in the complaint have to be considered which, as already noticed, do not disclose any prima facie offence against the petitioners-accused.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is accepted. The complaint dated 23.7.1994 and the subsequent proceedings taken therein are hereby quashed.
http://Vinayak.wordpress.com ; https://twitter.com/atmwithdick/

Wife looses #UnnaturalSex & #Dowry case on territorial jurisdiction !! Delhi #sessions court 

IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SFTC), DWARKA COURTS; NEW DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 79/17
Ms. Surinder Kaur ……… Petitioner
Vs.
State and Others ………. Respondents
File received on assignment on : 20.2.2017
Arguments heard on : 28.2.2017
Order announced on : 09.3.2017
ORDER :
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 10.2.2017 passed by Ld. MM­1 (South West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi whereby application u/s.156(3) Cr.PC as well as complaint u/s. 200 Cr.PC were dismissed on the ground that the courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.

  1. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner married respondent no.2 on 28.3.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Karnal, Haryana. They lived in their matrimonial home at Karnal for some time. Immediately after the marriage differences arose between them. It is alleged that the petitioner was harassed and treated with cruelty for dowry by the respondent no.2 to 8. It is further alleged that in the month of April 2015 the petitioner took loan against an F.D. from HDFC Bank on the asking of her husband. Respondent no.2 also took her istridhan gold jewellery to get a loan. It is further alleged that on the asking of the respondent no.2, the petitioner took a loan against property at Pitampura, New Delhi from Tata Finance on 01.10.2015 of Rs.30 lakhs and it was transferred to the account of respondent no.2 on 11.10.2015. It is alleged that respondent no.2 is having extra­marital relation with a divorcee. Respondent no.2 also used to have unnatural sex with her. On these allegations, complaint was filed before the Ld. M.M.
  2. Status report was filed by the police mentioning therein that no demand or harassment or transaction took place within the jurisdiction of Delhi and, as such, Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
  3. Petitioner filed a protest petition to the report filed by the police. In the protest petition, it was submitted that there are clear allegations of transactions in favour of the respondent no.2 and also of unnatural sex having been committed in Delhi and, therefore, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.
  4. I have heard Sh. Praveen Singh, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Satwinder Kaur, Ld. APP for respondent No.1 i.e State. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is sufficient material on record against the respondent no.2 to 8 for registration of FIR. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon judgments – Hemant Yaswant Dhage vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Crl. Rev. 79/17. Appeal No. 110/2016, decided by Apex Court on 10.2.2016; Satvinder Kaur vs. State, Criminal Appeal No.1031/1999, decided on 05.10.1999 and Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee
  5. I have gone through the file. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent no.2 was solemnized at Karnal, Haryana. The petitioner used to live in Delhi after her marriage as she started working in Delhi to earn money. She used to visit Karnal only on weekends. There is nothing in the complaint that the respondent no.2 ever visited her in Delhi. In para 2.31 of her complaint, it has been specifically mentioned by her ­ “accused no.1 never stayed with his wife despite knowing how painful it’s for a female body to work for an entire week and travel to 50 kms. to meet her husband on weekends.”.
  6. As regards the allegations of the petitioner that she had to take care of all the expenses by withdrawing money from the bank or taking loan, these allegations are not cruelty within the meaning of section 498A IPC. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the offences alleged in the complaint are continuing in nature and, therefore, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint is without any merit in view of judgment Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai, Appeal (crl.) No. 904/2004, decided by Apex Court on 17.8.2004. The judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
  7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the logic of Crl. Rev. 79/17. section 178 (c) Cr.PC relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied as there is not even a whisper of allegation to any entrustment/demand of dowry or commission of any act of cruelty at Delhi.
  8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Trial court record be sent back with a copy of the order and revision file be consigned to record room.
    Announced in open

(Praveen Kumar) court today on 09.03.2017.
Addl. Sessions Judge (SFTC)

Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

.