Daulat Ram Gupta vs State & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 3635 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                DECIDED ON : 19th August, 2013

+      CRL.M.C. 1480/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.10615/2013 (Delay)

       DAULAT RAM GUPTA
                                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr.V.M.Tripathi with Mr.pramod
                                   Kumar, Advocates.
                          versus

       STATE & ANR
                                                      ..... Respondents
                          Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.


CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the

petitioner challenges order dated 28.1.2011 of learned Additional Sessions

Judge by which the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 against

the order dated 28.10.2010 was accepted and she was discharged of all the

charges.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have

examined the record. Counsel urged that the order cannot be sustained as

at the time of consideration of charge, the Trial Court is required to take

prima facie view and cannot scrutinize the prosecution case minutely on

merits. There was enough evidence on record in the statement of the

complainant and the witnesses examined by him to proceed against the

respondents for committing offences for which they were charged-

sheeted.

3. It is a matter of record that the charge-sheet against the

respondents was filed in 2006 under Sections 379/406/34 IPC. On

28.10.2010 learned ACMM ordered to frame charge under Section

406/411 IPC and discharged the respondent No.2 under Section 379 IPC.

The respondent No.2 went in revision and vide order dated 28.01.2010 the

Revisional Court accepted it and discharged her. It is relevant to note that

the State has not challenged the discharge order. The complainant

preferred revision No.228/2011 impugning the orders of learned ACMM

and ASJ and was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate

petition on 11.07.2011. It is further a matter of record that the present

petition has been preferred on 16.04.2013 after an inordinate delay of 19

months. Vide order dated 16.04.2013, this Court directed the petitioner to

satisfy with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of

unexplained delay and laches. The petitioner has not given any plausible

explanation for not filing the proceedings in a reasonable time. In the

absence of any explanation of delay, I find no sound reasons to condone

the inordinate delay.

4. On merits, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The

petitioner did not challenge discharge of the respondent No.2 under

Section 379 IPC. Both the petitioner and respondent No.2 were husband

and wife and lived together at the matrimonial home since 1986 after their

marriage. The dispute arose between them in 2004 when various

complaints were lodged against each other. The petitioner is also facing

proceedings under Section 498A IPC. Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 relatives

of respondent No.2 It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he kept

the valuable articles or documents with his wife for proper

custody/security. He further admitted that the almirah where the articles

were kept was under the joint use of his wife with him. Apparently, there

was no entrustment of any specific property with respondent No.2 to

attract Section 405/406 IPC. No substantial alleged stolen jewellery was

recovered from the possession of the accused/respondent No.2 The

property documents were recovered from the house which was in common

use of the parties. The Revisional Court was right to observe that the

relations between the parties were of husband and wife and it could not be

said that the respondent No.2 dishonestly received or retained the titled

deeds. The only motive to file the present petition seems to drag

respondent No.2 and her close relations in a futile litigation.

5. The petition is unmerited and is dismissed.

Crl.M.A.No.10615/2013 also stands disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE AUGUST 19, 2013 sa