Anjali Sharma vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Delhi & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1236 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. The petitioner was married to the respondent No. 2 on 21.7.1991. The Vida ceremony took place in early morning of 22.7.1991. On the very first day when the petitioner reached her matrimonial home, she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by the respondents by being called ugly etc. In the evening, the respondents virtually forced the petitioner to leave her matrimonial home as a result whereof she came to her parental home accompanied by her brothers Rajesh and Vinod. Despite her repeated requests, she was not allowed to enter her matrimonial home. Her husband (respondent No. 2), having deserted her, left for Paris. In May, 1992, respondent No. 2 came to India, but she was not allowed to meet her husband. However, two days before the Diwali festival, she was called by the respondent No. 3 at his house to sign blank papers and on her refusal to do so she was man-handled by her in-laws. Her in-laws even refused to return her stridhan. On 19.3.1993, the petitioner made a written complaint to the DCP (Women Crime Cell), New Delhi, on the basis of which FIR No. 231/93 was registered at the Police Station R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 498-A/406 IPC against the respondents. On 8.5.1995, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi framed a charge under Section 406 I.P.C. against the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 and discharged the respondents No. 2 and 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner's main grievance is that the materials collected by the prosecuting agency clearly make out a prima facie case under Sections 498-A I.P.C. against all the respondents and the learned Magistrate has committed a manifest illegality in discharging the accused persons of the offence charged under Section 498-A I.P.C. The impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate discharged the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 for want of sufficient evidence against them and he declined to frame a charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the remaining respondent on the ground that the petitioner's complaint is conspicuous by absence of the essential ingredients of the said offence. It is well settled that at the stage of framing charge, the trial court is expected to apply its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, examine them on the scale of law with a view to finding out whether there is a strong suspicion for presum-

ing that the accused has committed an offence. The trial court for this limited purpose can sift the evidence. (Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. J.B. Bijja and Others, ). This, however, does not mean that the trial court should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence for the purpose of determining the guilt of an accused. (Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, ). In other words, while looking into the matter, the trial court is not to apply the standard of test, proof and judgment, which is to be applied before recording a finding of guilt or otherwise. . In this context, I may usefully except the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors., :-

"......If on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of fram-

ing 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".

3. In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 1999 (7) AD (S.C.) 129 = J.T. 1999 (5) 394, it was held that :-

"It is well settled that at the stage of framing charge the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the mate-

rials on record. If on the basis of materials on record the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have commit-

ted the offence the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial".

4. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, I am constrained to observe that the learned Magistrate has totally ignored the averments made by the petitioner in her complaint dated 19.3.1993, which is the foundation of the prosecution case. Her complaint brings out with telling effect the distressed life that she was leading almost from the day of her marriage with the respondent No. 2. It contains the averments that she was repeatedly taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured by the respondents No. 3 to 6 by being called ugly etc. and this was done with the active connivance of her husband (respondent No. 2). Her complaint further shows that she has been deserted by her husband (respondent No. 2). It has to be borne in mind that the marriage involves a high degree of interdependence, a close emotional bond, sharing of residence, a commitment overtime, a sharing of roles and functions and an active sexual relationship. Marriage offers stability, providing an atmosphere of love, acceptance, encouragement and trust in which partners exchange instrumental and expressive support. The goal of marriage is to become united in purpose and spirit. The simple role of husband in the past decades has now been replaced with a more complex role. But the emotional needs of a woman are different. She wants a soul mate, someone who can understand her needs, someone who is caring and one who can take care of her when she is unduly stressed. If a husband allows his wife to be maltreated or mentally tortured by his relatives and he also deserts her without a reasonable course, then his wilful and unjustifiable conduct amounts to legal cruelty.

5. In Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, , it was held that cruelty or harassment need not be physical. Even mental torture in a given case would be a case of cruelty and harass-

ment within the meaning of Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. It was also held that a wilful conduct means, conduct wilfully done; this may be inferred by direct or indirect evidence which could be construed to be such. In the instant case, the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows what the prosecution has up it sleeves and what it proposes to prove. At this stage, the statement of the petitioner cannot be sieved through a cull ender of finest gauzes to test its veracity. What is impor-

tant at this stage is that the statement of the petitioner does go to show that there is sufficient ground for presuming that all the respondents have also committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Thus, the learned Magistrate has committed a manifest illegality in discharging all the accused persons of the offence charge under Section 498-A I.P.C.

6. For the forgoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent it discharges all the accused persons of the offence charged under Section 498-A I.P.C. The learned Magistrate is directed to frame a charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the accused persons and to proceed in accordance with law. Before I part with this order, I would like to make it clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.