Sanchita Kar And Ors. vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
2004 Latest Caselaw 226 Del

ORDER

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.7.2003 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charge under Section 498A, IPC against the petitioners herein.

2. It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that taking the totality of the material on record and deeming it to be true and correct, no offence is made out against the petitioners herein. He submits that in the entire complaint the only paragraphs that relate to the petitioners are as follows:

"That during this time my brother-in-law had indulged into a habit of gambling. So much so that his press had to be sold off. The Ambassador car, VCR, etc., had to be sold off to settle his debts. He was out of job. So much so he never used to submit the fees at his son's school. Then one day we received a notice from the school. Although I was not told of anything I guessed that something was wrong. I spoke to my sister-in-law. She then told me that they needed Rs. 4,000/- for paying of the fees at the school. Since they had taken so much of debt even her own father declined to give any further money till the old debts (approx Rs. 5,000/-) are settled. I rang my father and told him of the situation. He immediately sent me the money (Rs. 4,000/-) and the problem was settled. My husband told me that he will give back this money also."

"In February 1999 in order to normalize the situation I told my husband if it helps I can take a transfer to Lucknow because the tension in the house was taking its toll on my health. Both my sister-in-laws (Nand) who came to stay in my matrimonial home created an extremely unpleasant scene when they heard about the same. So much so that in spite of running 104 degree fever and that it was about 10.00 p.m. I had to leave the house."

3. It is conceded by Counsel for the State that the only material on record in this case is the statement of the complainant and her mother. In both the statements there is no averment other than that stated in the complaint against the petitioners herein. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that there is sufficient material on record to frame a charge under Section 498-A against the petitioners herein. A simple bald statement roping in the entire family is not sufficient to bring around such a charge. Even during investigation it appears that the Investigation Agency was not able to procure any other material other than the statement of the complainant in which anything beyond what has been stated above has come out.

4. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that no charge could be framed against the petitioners herein. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the married sister-in-laws and petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law. Having, therefore, carefully considered the material on record I quash the order dated 16.7.2003 qua the petitioner's herein.

Crl. Rev. P. 817/2003 is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Crl. M.A. 1453/2003 also stands disposed of.