Parvinder Kaur vs Miss Kanwal Jit Kaur And Ors.
1998 Latest Caselaw 1039 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 25th July, 1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissing petitioner's revision petition against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 22nd October, 1992, declining to frame charge against respondents No. 1 & 2 under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC on the ground that the same was not only barred by limitation, it did not suffer from any infirmity as well. The petitioner complainant is the wife and respondents No. 1 & 2 are the two sisters-in-law (Nanads) of the complainant. The State has been arrayed as respondent No. 3.

2. While the said two respondents were discharged, charge under the affronted sections was framed against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner.

3. The complainant was married to Tanvir Singh, s/o Ishar Singh on 20th March, 1991. It was a second marriage for both. The new marital life was apparently not successful either because of demand of dowry from respondent's side, as alleged by the complainant or because of incompatibility and some other reasons, as alleged by the respondents. Be that as it may, due to some incidents, allegedly taking place on 30th May, 1991, and 18th July, 1991, the complainant left the matrimonial home on 18th July, 1991. On 19th August, 1991, she lodged a complaint with crime. Against Women Cell on the basis whereof an FIR was registered against respondents No. 1 & 2, Tanvir Singh and his father Ishar Singh on 31st December, 1991, under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. On completion of the investigations, chaplain was filed against all of them. As noted above, on consideration of the material before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, charges were framed against Tanvir Singh and Ishar Singh but respondents No. 1 & 2 were discharged for want of sufficient evidence against them. Hence the present petition by the complainant. The State has accepted the said order.

4. A reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and they dub the allegations against them in the complaint as vague; imprecise and unbelievable and assert that the complaint does not spell out any case against them under the affronted provisions.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. At the threshold a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. K.K. Sud, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents that a second revision petition by a private party in a State case is not maintainable. In support of their rival contentions on the issue, learned Counsel have relied on various pronouncements. But I consider it unnecessary to go into the said objections as I find that even on tacts no case, warranting interference by this Court either in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is made out.

7. In support of his contention that sufficient material exists on record against the respondents, Mr. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has invited the attention of the Court to the incidents, alleged to have taken place on 30th May, 1991, and 18th July, 1991, referred to in the complaint dated 19th August, 1991. Besides, he has also referred to the statement made by the complainant on 1st January, 1992, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the learned Counsel.

8. It is well settled that while considering the question of framing charge, the Trial Court has to consider broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record. It has to sift and weigh the evidence for a limited purpose whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

9. In the alleged incident dated 30th May, 1991, the allegation against the said respondents is that when some altercation took place between the petitioner and her husband who was under the influence of liquor, in the evening of that date, and a demand for dowry was allegedly made by him, the said respondents got "infuriated". It is further said that when the petitioner showed resistance to their demand for dowry, her father-in-law got up from his seat and twisted her both arms adversely and thereafter her husband tried to strangulate her with her chunni and the said respondents started pricking her hair when she felt strangulated and hard-breathing.

10. Similarly in the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 18th July, 1991, the allegation against the respondents is that when the petitioner was leaving for her matrimonial home, they snatched all the things from her; kept these with them and turned her out forcibly. In my view, as held by the lower Courts, the said allegations cannot be said to be sufficient to rope in the respondents either under Section 406 or 498A, IPC.

11. Coming to the statement of the petitioner-complainant recorded on 1st January, 1992, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. I feel that though there are specific allegation against the respondents of removing her gold ring, ear rings and gold Karas but the statement having been recorded after a lapse of nearly six months of the alleged last incident, on 18th July, 1991, and reported in the petitioner's complaint dated 19th August, 1991, is merely an after-thought and self serving.

12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The petition, being without any merit, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

13. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of final opinion on the merits of the case.

Crl. M. 2197/2995.

14. In view of the order passed today in the main petition, on further orders are required in this application and the same stands disposed of accordingly.