Delhi High Court
K.L.Jai Singh vs Yashpal Arora & Anr. on 13 February, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 9th January, 2013
DECIDED ON : 13th February, 2013
+ CRL.M.C.2187/2012
K.L.JAI SINGH ....Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.P.K.Mullick, Ms.Sona Mullick and
Ms.Meenakshi Midha, Advocates.
versus
YASHPAL ARORA & ANR. ....Respondents
Through : Mr.Yashpal Arora in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders dated 10.05.2012 and 24.01.2008 in
case FIR No.509/1996 registered under Sections 304B/498A IPC at PS
Kalkaji whereby the respondent No.1 was discharged.
2. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
the respondent No.1 in person and have examined the record. The
respondent No.1 was married to Pramila (since deceased) on 30.08.1994.
He was transferred to Orissa in May, 1996 and they both started residing
there. During summer vacations, the deceased stayed at her parental
home, from 15.05.1996 to 11.06.1996 and thereafter, went back to
Talchar, Orissa. On 24.06.1996, the respondent informed the deceased's
parents that she was admitted in ICU in a hospital at Talchar. On
25.06.1996, the petitioner went there and on the advice of the local
doctors, the deceased was brought to Delhi for treatment. She was
admitted at Batra Hospital where she expired on 07.07.1996. The
petitioner lodged complaint on 27.07.1996. The respondent filed petition
for quashing of the FIR which was rejected by this Court vide order dated
09.10.2001.
3. Learned Senior counsel urged that the discharge order of the
Trial Court cannot be sustained as there was enough material to proceed
against the respondent for committing offence punishable under Section
498A IPC. The complainant leveled specific allegations against the
respondent for treating the deceased with cruelty on account of dowry
demands. Veena Jaisingh, mother of the deceased in her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclosed that the respondent had demanded money
on various occasions. The counsel relied upon the statements of Hanuman
Prashad, Sri Narain, R.J.Goel and Parmeshwari Devi to emphasize that the
deceased was subjected to harassment. He contended that at the stage of
consideration of charge, the Court was not expected to make roving
enquiries. The Court was required to shift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case was made
out. For this, the Court was to evaluate the material and documents on
record to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value
were prima facie sufficient to proceed against the accused. Reliance was
placed on 'Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI', (2010) 9 SCC 368.
4. It is admitted position that the petitioner lodged complaint
against the respondent for the first time only on 27.07.1996. Prior to that,
at no stage, any complaint whatever was lodged either by the petitioner or
his family member against the respondent for treating the deceased with
cruelty on account of dowry demands. The deceased herself did not file
any complaint with the police or any authority to infer that she was
harassed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. Both the respondent
and deceased lived together after the marriage for about two years but she
never opted to lodge any complaint against him. They both visited Delhi
where the deceased stayed at her parents' house for considerable time
from 15.05.1996 to 11.06.1996. Again, there is nothing on record to
suggest that she had any complaint against the conduct and behaviour of
the respondent. Rather she accompanied him to Talchar, Orissa after
summer vacation. When she fell ill there, she was treated in a hospital.
The respondent duly informed the petitioner about the critical condition of
the deceased and she was treated at Batra Hospital at Delhi. She remained
admitted in the Hospital for number of days. At no stage, the deceased or
her family members had any grievance and did not report the incident of
cruelty to the doctors who attended her or to the police. No attempt was
made to record her statement. After her death in the hospital, her last rites
were performed at her in-laws' house. No post-mortem on the body was
conducted. At no stage, the petitioner suspected foul play in the death of
the deceased. The respondent has relied upon the medical opinion of
doctors at Talchar, Orissa and at Delhi. The cause of death was opined as
Septicemia caused due to an infection. No external or internal injuries
were noticed on her body including abdomen. Dr.R.K.Mani, opined that
the probable cause of death was Urinary Tract Infection or intestinal
infection. Apparently, the Trial Court had no enough material to frame
charge under Section 498 A/ 304B IPC against the respondent.
5. I have gone through the orders dated 10.05.2012 and
24.01.2008 which are based on fair appraisal of the evidence on record
collected by the Investigating Agency during investigation. Under Section
482 Cr.P.C., the extra-ordinary powers cannot be exercised if the reasoned
orders have been passed upon proper appreciation of material and are not
perverse. The allegations in the complaint lodged, after a considerable
delay, were not substantiated with any documentary evidence to
corroborate the ocular testimony of the witnesses who were mainly related
to the deceased. Mere suspicion cannot be the basis to frame charge in a
criminal case. The revision petition against the discharge order was
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. In the light of above discussion, no sufficient ground is made
out to quash the impugned orders. The petition is dismissed.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 13, 2013
tr
