Ajay Kumar @ Lalu & Ors vs State & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5040 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                              Reserved on: 12th August, 2011

                                               Decided on: 13th October, 2011

+       CRL.REV.P. 109/2010 & Crl.M.A. 2602/2010 (stay)


        AJAY KUMAR @ LALU & ORS                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through  Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana, Ms.
                             Meenakshi, Advs.

                         versus

        STATE & ORS                                             ..... Respondent
                                  Through   Mr. C.L. Gupta, APP for State.


+       CRL.REV.P. 183/2010 & Crl.M.A. 5289/2010 (stay)


        AJAY KUMAR @ LALU & ORS                ..... Petitioner
                    Through  Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana, Ms.
                             Meenakshi, Advs.

                         versus

        STATE & ORS                                         ..... Respondent
                                  Through   Mr. C.L. Gupta, APP for State.


+       CRL.REV.P. 110/2010 & Crl.M.A. 2639/2010 (stay)


        JHABBAR SINGH BESOYA               ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana, Ms.
                             Meenakshi, Advs.



Crl.Rev.P. 109/2010 & conn. Matters                                       Page 1 of 9
                          versus


        STATE & ORS                                         ..... Respondent
                                  Through   Mr. C.L. Gupta, APP for State.


Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA


1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may            Not Necessary
   be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                   Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported              Yes
   in the Digest?

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By these petitions the Petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order

dated 27th January, 2010 directing framing of charge and the order on charge

under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC against the Petitioners.

2. At the outset it may be noted that the Petitioners Ajay Kumar and

Kamlesh were Petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 109/2010. When

the petition came up for hearing on 12th April, 2010 the learned counsel stated

that he was not pressing the petition qua these two petitioners. Despite that a

fresh Criminal Revision Petitioner No. 183/2010 has been filed stating that the

petition qua these Petitioners was withdrawn inadvertently. No notice was

issued in Criminal Revision Petition No. 183/2010, however it was tagged

with connected matters for hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners have

been falsely implicated in the present FIR and there is no evidence against

them warranting framing of the charge. The FIR has been registered on an

omnibus statement of the mother of the deceased wherein vague and general

allegations have been leveled. The diary of the deceased has been recovered

and as per the diary written by her there is no allegation of demand of dowry

against the Petitioners. Petitioner No.2 Suman in Crl.Rev.P. 110/2010 is the

married sister-in-law who was married even prior to the marriage of the

deceased with Ajay Kumar and has no connection with the matrimonial home.

Further the Petitioner Jhabbar Singh aged about 70 years is the uncle of the

husband of the deceased and is living separately at a distance and has no

connection with the matrimonial house. No specific allegation as to who

demanded dowry has been made. Further the falsity of the prosecution case is

borne out from the fact that to support their allegation that they had paid a

sum of Rs. 1 lakh after selling their ancestral house in the village, forged and

fabricated sale-deed has been prepared by the complainant and her family

members. Reliance is placed on Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) & Anr. 2008 I AD (Crl.)(S.C.) 437, Ramesh and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu AIR 2005 SC 1989, Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra

2002 (I) JCC 172, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj

Bijja and Ors. 1990 Crl.L.J. 1869, Sunil Bansal and Ors. Vs. The State of

Delhi 2007 IV AD (Cr.) (DHC) 402, Raman Kumar and Anr. Vs. State (Govt.

of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (109) DRJ 305.

4. Learned APP on the other hand contends that the allegations as set out

in the FIR by the complainant and in the statements recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C. clearly show that there was a constant demand of dowry. The

deceased had stayed at her parental home for a period of around 5-6 months as

there was demand of dowry. Further the uncle Jhabbar Singh was the person

instrumental in arranging the marriage. The marriage took place at his

instance. There are specific allegations against Jhabbar Singh for demand of

dowry. The deceased was sent on the assurance given by Jhabbar Singh and

Suman that the complainant's daughter will be kept safely and no harassment

would be caused to her. Despite the assurance given to the mother and the

family members of the deceased, the deceased was harassed resulting in her

committing suicide. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the

present Petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the case of the

prosecution is that Sarita daughter of the complainant Krishna was married to

Ajay Kumar, Petitioner No.1 in Crl.Rev.P. 183/2010 on 3rd February, 2005 as

per Hindu rites. According to the complainant, the marriage of complainant's

daughter was finalized through Jhabbar Singh, the uncle of Ajay Kumar. This

finalization of marriage had taken place at the residence of the in-laws of

Suman, the sister-in-law. Around 6 lakhs were spent in the marriage, however

the in-laws of the deceased i.e. Ajay Kumar her husband, Kamlesh, the

mother-in-law, Karan Singh Besoya the brother-in-law, Jhabbar Singh, the

uncle and Suman the Sister-in-law, harassed and used to beat the deceased for

demand of money. On this the complainant gave a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to in-

laws of the deceased. However, still they were not satisfied. Thereafter they

demanded that half share in the property of the complainant should be given

to the deceased. When Manoj Kumar the brother of the deceased spoke to the

Petitioner Jhabbar Singh along with the elders of the family, he demanded Rs.

1 lakh more and assured that thereafter Sarita would be settled at her

matrimonial home. On this the complainant sold her house and gave Rs. 1

lakh to them. On receipt of the money Petitioners Jhabbar Singh and Suman

assured and thus the deceased was sent to the matrimonial home. Despite

assurance the in-laws of the deceased harassed her on account of demand of

dowry and finally she committed suicide on 4 th January, 2007. The fact that

the in-laws were asking for a share in the property was told by Sarita to one

Sanjeev her cousin, statement of Sanjeev Kumar was also recorded in this

regard.

6. A perusal of the FIR and statement of witnesses shows that there are

clear allegations of demand of dowry against the Petitioners. The Petitioners

who are stated to be residing separately i.e. Jhabbar Singh and Suman have

also demanded dowry and only after receiving the same they assured that the

deceased would not be harassed. However, despite payment of money and

assurance the harassment continued.

7. A perusal of the contents of the diary though does not say that there was

any harassment on account of demand of dowry, however the diary clearly

shows that despite the fact that the deceased did not cause any grievance the

Petitioners harassed her. The deceased has expressed herself in the diary and

has stated that though she has never hurt anybody, however people left no

stone unturned to harass her and trouble her. She has gone to the extent of

saying that perhaps her husband enjoys in grieving the other persons.

8. The contention that Rs. 1 lakh was paid to the Petitioners by selling the

house is falsified by the fact that the alleged sale-deed produced by the

complainant allegedly shows that the sale transaction took place on 30th

October, 2006 though the document is purchased subsequently thereafter and

in the original document filed the date of execution i.e. 30 th October, 2006 has

been destroyed cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The Petitioners have

already filed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Trial

Court for taking action against the complainant for filing forged and

fabricated documents before the Court. This issue will have to be gone into at

the stage of trial. Suffice it is to note that at this stage even after ignoring the

sale deed the evidence on record raises strong suspicion of the offences

charged having been committed by the Petitioners. This is not a case of

sifting of evidence but requires appreciation of evidence. At this stage it

would not be appropriate for this Court to assess the probative value of the

evidence. All that has to be seen is whether there is a strong suspicion against

the Petitioners for having committed the offence. Further it is contended that

the Petitioner Jhabbar Singh was in Haridwar from 19th November, 2006 to

21st November, 2006. This plea of alibi of the Petitioner Jhabbar can only be

looked into at the stage of trial wherein it will be tested on adducing evidence

in this regard.

9. The reliance of the Petitioner on Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi

(supra) is misconceived. Their Lordships in the said decision have clearly laid

down that evaluation of the material and the documents on record at the stage

of framing of charge is only with a view to find out if the facts emerging

therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the

alleged offence. The shifting of the evidence at this stage is very limited. In

the garb of sifting of the evidence this Court cannot evaluate it and come to

the conclusion that the version of the complainant and the other family

members that Rs. 1 lakh was paid after selling the ancestral property is false.

In Dilawar Balu Kurane (supra) also their Lordships held that where the

materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused

which has not been properly explained the Court would be justified in framing

a charge. The Judge cannot merely act 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 documents produced before the Court, however

should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and

weigh the evidence as if it was concluding the trial.

10 The reliance on Ramesh and Ors.(supra) is also misconceived. Their

Lordships in the said decision were dealing with the issue whether the

cognizance taken was barred by limitation and secondly whether the

allegations in the FIR constitute the ingredients of the offence or not. In the

said case no act of abatement was alleged against the sister-in-law and so it

was held that the imputations therein did not amount to harassment with a

view to coercing informant or her relation to meet unlawful demand for any

property or valuable security. The allegations in the said case were that she

was asked to wash W.C. and remarks such as 'even if you have got much

jewellery, you are our slave' were passed. This was held not amounting to

harassment with a view to coerce informant or her relations to meet an

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Even in Onkar Nath

Mishra (supra) their Lordships laid down that at the stage of framing of

charge the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the

material on record.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and keeping in view the facts of the

case, I find no merit in the present petitions. Prima facie strong suspicion

arises against the Petitioners which is sufficient at the stage of framing of

charge. Petitions and applications are accordingly dismissed.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 13, 2011 'ga'