* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 9th January, 2013
DECIDED ON : 13th February, 2013
+ CRL.M.C.2187/2012
K.L.JAI SINGH ....Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.P.K.Mullick, Ms.Sona Mullick and
Ms.Meenakshi Midha, Advocates.
versus
YASHPAL ARORA & ANR. ....Respondents
Through : Mr.Yashpal Arora in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders dated 10.05.2012 and 24.01.2008 in case FIR No.509/1996 registered under Sections 304B/498A IPC at PS Kalkaji whereby the respondent No.1 was discharged.
2. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1 in person and have examined the record. The respondent No.1 was married to Pramila (since deceased) on 30.08.1994. He was transferred to Orissa in May, 1996 and they both started residing there. During summer vacations, the deceased stayed at her parental CRL.M.C.2187/2012 Page 1 of 5 home, from 15.05.1996 to 11.06.1996 and thereafter, went back to Talchar, Orissa. On 24.06.1996, the respondent informed the deceased's parents that she was admitted in ICU in a hospital at Talchar. On 25.06.1996, the petitioner went there and on the advice of the local doctors, the deceased was brought to Delhi for treatment. She was admitted at Batra Hospital where she expired on 07.07.1996. The petitioner lodged complaint on 27.07.1996. The respondent filed petition for quashing of the FIR which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2001.
3. Learned Senior counsel urged that the discharge order of the Trial Court cannot be sustained as there was enough material to proceed against the respondent for committing offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. The complainant leveled specific allegations against the respondent for treating the deceased with cruelty on account of dowry demands. Veena Jaisingh, mother of the deceased in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclosed that the respondent had demanded money on various occasions. The counsel relied upon the statements of Hanuman Prashad, Sri Narain, R.J.Goel and Parmeshwari Devi to emphasize that the deceased was subjected to harassment. He contended that at the stage of consideration of charge, the Court was not expected to make roving CRL.M.C.2187/2012 Page 2 of 5 enquiries. The Court was required to shift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case was made out. For this, the Court was to evaluate the material and documents on record to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value were prima facie sufficient to proceed against the accused. Reliance was placed on 'Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI', (2010) 9 SCC 368.
4. It is admitted position that the petitioner lodged complaint against the respondent for the first time only on 27.07.1996. Prior to that, at no stage, any complaint whatever was lodged either by the petitioner or his family member against the respondent for treating the deceased with cruelty on account of dowry demands. The deceased herself did not file any complaint with the police or any authority to infer that she was harassed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. Both the respondent and deceased lived together after the marriage for about two years but she never opted to lodge any complaint against him. They both visited Delhi where the deceased stayed at her parents' house for considerable time from 15.05.1996 to 11.06.1996. Again, there is nothing on record to suggest that she had any complaint against the conduct and behaviour of the respondent. Rather she accompanied him to Talchar, Orissa after summer vacation. When she fell ill there, she was treated in a hospital. CRL.M.C.2187/2012 Page 3 of 5 The respondent duly informed the petitioner about the critical condition of the deceased and she was treated at Batra Hospital at Delhi. She remained admitted in the Hospital for number of days. At no stage, the deceased or her family members had any grievance and did not report the incident of cruelty to the doctors who attended her or to the police. No attempt was made to record her statement. After her death in the hospital, her last rites were performed at her in-laws' house. No post-mortem on the body was conducted. At no stage, the petitioner suspected foul play in the death of the deceased. The respondent has relied upon the medical opinion of doctors at Talchar, Orissa and at Delhi. The cause of death was opined as Septicemia caused due to an infection. No external or internal injuries were noticed on her body including abdomen. Dr.R.K.Mani, opined that the probable cause of death was Urinary Tract Infection or intestinal infection. Apparently, the Trial Court had no enough material to frame charge under Section 498 A/ 304B IPC against the respondent.
5. I have gone through the orders dated 10.05.2012 and 24.01.2008 which are based on fair appraisal of the evidence on record collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the extra-ordinary powers cannot be exercised if the reasoned orders have been passed upon proper appreciation of material and are not CRL.M.C.2187/2012 Page 4 of 5 perverse. The allegations in the complaint lodged, after a considerable delay, were not substantiated with any documentary evidence to corroborate the ocular testimony of the witnesses who were mainly related to the deceased. Mere suspicion cannot be the basis to frame charge in a criminal case. The revision petition against the discharge order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. In the light of above discussion, no sufficient ground is made out to quash the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2013 tr CRL.M.C.2187/2012 Page 5 of 5