Delhi High Court
State vs Neetu on 30 September, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
19
$~
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 74/2010
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP.
versus
NEETU ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.S. Singh and Mr. Madhur
Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 30.09.2010
Crl. M.A. No.1560/2010 (for delay)
1 There is a delay of 72 days in filing of the present petition by the
State against the order of discharge dated 25th August, 2009. It is pointed
out that the delay has occasioned as due to personal reasons the
Additional Public Prosecutor could not process the file in his office and
file the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the
application is allowed and the delay is condoned.
Crl. Rev. P. No.74/2010
2 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25 th
August, 2009 discharging the respondent Ms. Neetu holding inter alia
that no case is made out against her and as no specific role is assigned or
attributed by her.
3 The State had filed charge sheet in FIR No.136/2009 Police
Station Gokalpuri under Section 306/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
4 The law as to when charge should be framed has been lucidly laid
{Crl.Rev.P. No.74/2010} Page 1
down by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samai and Another, 1979 (3) SCC 4, the relevant portion of which reads
as under :-
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities
mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose
of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing
a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that
the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will
be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior
and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the Court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however
does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence
as if he was conducting a trial."
5 The Supreme Court in a number of judgments has held that if
material and evidence collected by the prosecution shows presumptive
opinion as to existence of factual ingredients constituting an alleged
offence it would be appropriate to frame charge. At this stage the
learned trial court does not appreciate and examine evidence as at the
stage of final judgment.
{Crl.Rev.P. No.74/2010} Page 2
6 It may be noticed as per the prosecution case that the deceased
Komal had committed suicide on 17th April, 2009 at about 8.35 PM at
night. Ms. Sushma, mother of deceased has stated that she came to know
about her death only when she received a telephonic call from the Police
Station at about 9.00 a.m. on 18th April, 2009. Learned APP has drawn
my attention to the statement of Ms. Sushma, mother of deceased Komal
recorded on 18th April, 2009 by the S.D.M. In her statement she has
specifically named Neetu as one of the persons who used to constantly
trouble Komal and treat her with cruelty. She has stated that the
respondent Neetu used to call upon Komal for getting more dowry in
form of money. The name of Neetu has been again mentioned by Ms.
Sushma in a subsequent statement dated 2nd May, 2009. However, in
this statement Ms. Sushma has specifically named Rajeev, husband of
Komal and Leela mother-in-law of Komal with the demand of dowry.
My attention has also been drawn to the statement of Kishan Chand,
father of the deceased Komal, Sudhir and Sonu, both brothers of
deceased Komal. In their statements name of Neetu and the allegation
that she used to treat deceased Komal with cruelty is mentioned. It is
also noted that the deceased Komal was residing in the same premises
with respondent Neetu, her husband and mother-in-law.
7 In these circumstances, I think the learned trial court has erred of
not framing charge under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent,
Neetu. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25th August, 2009
discharging the Neetu under Section 498-A IPC is set aside. The
respondent Neetu will appear before the learned trial court on 5 th
October, 2010, when charge will be framed against her under Section
498-A IPC.
8 The respondent Neetu was granted regular bail before she was
discharged. The respondent Neetu will furnish fresh bail bond or re-
validate the earlier bail bond.
{Crl.Rev.P. No.74/2010} Page 3
9 It is clarified that observations made in this order are for the
purpose of disposal of the present petition and will not be construed as
observations on merit binding on the trial court. Nothing said in this
order will prevent the trial court from modifying the charge under
Section 216 Criminal Procedure Code.
Petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
J
{Crl.Rev.P. No.74/2010} Page 4
