Sonal Sharma & Anr vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 3760 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                            Judgment reserved on :13.08.2014.
                            Judgment delivered on :19.08.2014
+      CRL.REV.P. 565/2012 & Crl. M.A. No.17767/2012
       SONAL SHARMA & ANR.                          ..... Petitioners
                       Through: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv.

                            Versus
       STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI             ..... Respondent
                       Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. for the
                                   complainant.
                                   Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for the
                                   State.
+      CRL.REV.P. 566/2012 & Crl. M.A. No.17772/2012
       ARUN SHARMA                                     ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv.

                                      Versus

       STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
                                                               ..... Respondent
                              Through:       Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for the
                                             State.
                                             Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv. for the
                                             complainant.
+      CRL.REV.P. 588/2012
       POOJA SHARMA
                                                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through:                  Mr. Pawan Sharma, Adv.
                          Versus
       STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
                                                              ..... Respondents
                              Through:       Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for the
                                             State.
                                             Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv. for R-
                                             2.
Crl. Rev. P Nos. 565/2012, 566/2012 & 588/2012                   Page 1 of 9
 CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 The order impugned in these petitions is the commons order dated

03.08.2012. The revisionist Sonal Sharma and Manisha Sharma are

aggrieved by that part of the order vide which charge under Section 498-

A of the IPC has been framed against them. They are the sisters-in-law

of the victim Pooja. Arun Sharma is the mother-in-law of the victim.

She is aggrieved by that part of the order wherein charge under Sections

498-A/313 of the IPC has been directed to be framed against her. Pooja

Sharma is the complainant. She was the victim who had made the

complaint. She is aggrieved by that part of the order wherein a separate

charge under Section 406 of the IPC has not been framed against her

husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law as also her sisters-in-law;

she is also aggrieved by the fact that a separate charge under Section

325 of the IPC should have been framed against her husband but no

such finding has been returned by the trial Judge. The third grievance of

the complainant is that Section 34 of the IPC has not been added in

conjunction along with the offence under Sections 498-A/313 of the

IPC.

2 Record shows that Ankur and Pooja had been married according

to Hindu rites on 22.01.2006. They lived together till September, 2007.

The family of Ankur comprised of his mother Arun Sharma, his father

S.K. Sharma, his two married sister Sonal Sharma and Manisha Sharma

of whom Sonal Sharma at the time of his marriage was a resident of

Ambala and Manisha Sharma was a resident of Ghaziabad.

3 The complaint of the victim running into almost 13 pages has

been perused.

4 The foremost submission of the learned counsel for petitioner

Sonal Sharma is that the only allegation in the FIR against Sonal

Sharma is that the victim had stated that her sister-in-law Sonal Sharma

had told her that since she has not brought enough cash and jewelry, she

should not be allowed to go for honeymoon. Submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner being that the petitioner is admittedly a

resident of Ambala where she is doing teaching job. She had returned

back to Ambala on the following day i.e. one day after the marriage and

had met Pooja only once in the intervening period when she had come to

visit her parents in the summer vacation in the month of May, 2006.

Submission being that even in the complaint of Pooja, there is no

mention that Sonal had ever come to Delhi before 2006 and the sole

allegation leveled against her (as noted supra) that she had told Pooja

that she has not brought enough dowry and she should not be allowed to

go for honeymoon would not make out a case of 'cruelty' as has been

defined in Section 498-A of the IPC.

5 Needless to state that these submissions have been countered.

6 Record shows that in the entire FIR, the only role attributed to

Sonal is that what has been noted supra. Admittedly Sonal was married

at the time when Pooja and Ankur got married. Sonal had been married

in 1997 and was living in Ambala and working as a teacher. She had

come to Delhi only on one occasion in May, 2006 prior to the separation

of Pooja from her husband which was in September, 2007. No other role

has been attributed to Sonal. The charge framed against Sonal Sharma

under Section 498-A of the IPC thus cannot be sustained. It is

accordingly set aside.

7 Qua the role of Manisha Sharma, her role is different. The written

submissions filed by the petitioner on this count and the counter

submissions have been appreciated. This Court notes that there are

specific allegations made by Pooja against Manisha Sharma which are

of several dates. As per the FIR, Manisha Sharma along with her mother

had told her that she had brought only 1 kg of gold and in case she does

not bring more, they will get their son remarried. Other allegations

related to insufficient gifts having been given to the husband of Manisha

Sharma at the time of marriage and so also when Pooja returned back

from the Holi festival, she was taunted by Manisha for bringing

insufficient items. Manisha even otherwise used to criticize her.

8 Manisha Sharma was also a married sister-in-law and was living

in Ghaziabad up to December, 2006. In December, even as per her own

showing, she had gone to Hong Kong. Thus, even presuming that she

was in Ghaziabad only up to December, 2006 yet this was the period of

time when Pooja was facing a conflict in her matrimonial home and

Ghaziabad being within the vicinity of Delhi. Manisha's comings and

goings to her parental home are prima-facie borne out. Moreover, the

allegations against Manisha Sharma are specific. She has been charged

under Section 498-A of the IPC. This part of the order qua Manisha

Sharma suffers from no infirmity.

9 The role attributed to Arun Sharma, the mother-in-law of the

victim has also been perused. As per the complainant, there were several

occasions on which she was taunted by her mother-in-law for bringing

insufficient dowry. Pooja had become pregnant twice. In March, 2006,

she was in the family way; allegation was that her mother-in-law did not

want her to deliver a child and accordingly she used to force her to stand

on the kitchen slab and pick up heavy suitcases. The intent as is implicit

from the complaint was that the pregnancy of Pooja should not

culminate. This finds mention in the complaint. The medical record of

Pooja also substantiate that on 17.03.2006, after the occasion of Holi,

her ultrasound revealed a pregnancy of 4.3 weeks but since the cardiac

activity of the fetus was not evident, a review was ordered. The

complainant averred that the pregnancy of the victim was terminated

because she was forced to take a pill given by her husband; it was

reiterated that her mother-in-law also used to ask her to lift heavy

suitcases and climb on the kitchen slab knowing fully well that she was

pregnant at that time; this had led to the termination of her pregnancy.

This complaint read in conjunction with the medical record makes out a

prima-facie case under Section 313 of the IPC against Arun Sharma, the

mother-in-law of the victim. The charge against her under Section 498-

A also cannot be faulted with.

10 This Court notes that although charge under Section 313 of the

IPC has been framed not only against Arun Sharma the mother-in-law of

the victim but also against her husband but there no common intention

has been noted in the order of framing of charge under Section 34 of the

IPC. This appears to be an inadvertent mistake. Accordingly, Ankur

Sharma and Arun Sharma are charged for the offence under Section 313

read with Section 34 of the IPC as it was with their common intent that

this offence under Section 313 of the IPC be prima-facie committed.

This part of the charge be modified by the trial Judge.

11 The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that a

separate charge under Section 406 of the IPC is also made out against

in-laws of the petitioner i.e. both mother-in-law and father-in-law for

which submission the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn

attention of this Court to the last of the complaint wherein it has been

mentioned that the istridhan articles of the victim were lying with her in-

laws. This argument is bereft of force. As noted supra, the complaint is

running into 13 pages. There is not a whisper or entrustment of any

dowry article or any article with the in-laws of the victim. A mere one

line at the end of the complaint that the istridhan articles are lying with

the in-laws would not by itself be sufficient to frame charge for the

offence under Section 406 of the IPC which necessarily mandates that

there must be a criminal intent on the part of the accused to retain an

entrusted property. Non-framing of charge under Section 406 of the IPC

suffers from no infirmity.

12 So also non-framing of charge under Section 325 of the IPC

against the husband Ankur suffers from no infirmity. Submission of the

learned counsel for the complaint on this count is that the victim had

suffered an injury on her right wrist and this is substantiated by the

medical record which is to the effect that the medical record of Shri

Varshney Dharmarth Chikitsalya had certified that Pooja had suffered a

right wrist fracture. This certificate had been given by Dr. Ashok

Mutneja. Admittedly this document is dated 20.04.2007 and as per the

averment made in the complaint, the victim had suffered injury at the

hands of her husband on 05.03.2007. There is a gap of one month and

15 days. This intervening period which is wholly unexplainable. Even if

an injury had been suffered by the victim on 05.03.2007 which resulted

into a fracture, it would be unimaginable that she remained in pain and

did not go to the doctor for such a long period. Impugned order on this

count also suffers from no infirmity.

13 With these directions, revisions petitions are disposed off.

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 19, 2014 A