Delhi High Court
Mithun Kuswaha vs State Nct Of Delhi on 11 August, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: August 11, 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 76/2015
MITHUN KUSWAHA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Chand Gupta, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, with Sub-
Inspector Sunita, Police Station
G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)
1. By this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks for setting aside the order
dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge,
FTC, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi, in S.C. No.66/2014 whereby the
respondent has been charged for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A/306 of IPC.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 10.10.2010 the
petitioner got admitted his wife Preeti to Max Hospital, Patpar Ganj as
she had consumed the acid. On 12.10.2010 the patient Preeti
Kushwaha was declared dead by doctors, due to which an Inquiry was
conducted by SDM and on 26.10.2010 a case under Section 498A of
ipc was registered at the instance of Girja Devi (mother of the
deceased). However, on 06.12.2010 after recording of statement of
witnesses and observing the report of the SDM, Sections 306/34 of
IPC were added in the charge sheet. Consequently on 25.11.2014 the
charge sheet was filed and petitioner was charged with section
498A/306 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached
this court by way of the present revision petition.
3. Mr. Satish Chand Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the marriage of the
petitioner and the deceased Preeti Kushwaha was solemnized on
16.02.2010. Since the petitioner was working as Engineer in a
Company namely HCL situated in Noida and due to his odd duty
hours, he used to come late. However, mother of deceased Preeti made
an allegation that the petitioner had an illicit relation with some girl,
which was the main reason for coming late at home. The petitioner
tried to explain his wife but due to suspicious mind she did not listen
the petitioner. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that
due to the family atmosphere, the petitioner had to leave his job at
HCL and was to join another company named WIPRO from
11.10.2010. But the wife of the petitioner consumed bathroom cleaner
on 10.10.2010 which caused her untimely death on 12.10.2010.
4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that father of the deceased had made a statement before the
SDM on 13.10.2010 stating therein that there was no demand of
dowry on behalf of the petitioner or his family members. Petitioner
had also returned back all the dowry articles and it was agreed by the
father of deceased that he shall not initiate any legal action against him
and in this line, a compromise/agreement dated 20.10.2010 was also
executed between them.
5. On 26.10.2010, Smt. Girja Devi mother of the deceased filed a
written complaint and made her statement before the SDM Seemapuri,
making false allegations against the petitioner. All such allegations
were neglected and rejected by the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge and vide order dated 16.12.2010, he granted bail to the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.11.2014 framed
the charge under Section 498-A/306 of IPC despite theobservation that
it is a rebuttable presumption. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred the present petition against framing of charge
against him.
6. Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appears on behalf of the State and filed a status report in this regard,
indicating that upon an enquiry conducted by the SDM, an FIR
No.303/2010 was registered under Section 498-A/34 IPC on
26.11.2010, however, on 06.12.2010 section 306/34 of IPC were
added in the case on the basis of statement of witnesses and report of
SDM. The charges have been framed and the case is pending trial.
7. I have heard the submission made by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and have also gone through the impugned
orders passed by the learned Additional Session Judge framing
charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 306/34 of
IPC.
8. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 14.11.2014, in the
considered opinion of this court, it cannot be said that the learned
Additional Session Judge has not passed a reasoned order. The learned
Additional Session Judge has specifically dealt with the the
postmortem report, wherein cause of death was shock as a result of
chemical peritonitis due to ingestion of corrosive substance and
observed that the deceased died within seven yars of her marriage,
therefore, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act
may be drawn against the petitioner. This court further notes that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge while framing charge under
Sections 498-A/306 of IPC has also observed that such a presumption
is rebuttable but at the stage of charge the facts and circumstances of
the case were prima facie held to be sufficient for framing the charge
under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC.
9. After going through the contents of the petition as well as
material placed on record, this court is of the considered opinion that
the Court at the stage of framing the charges has not to apply its
judicial mind for considering whether or not there is a ground for
presuming the commission of the offence by the accused is not
supportable either on the plain language of the section or on its
judicial interpretation or on any other recognised principle of law. It is
also a well settled principle that the order framing the charges does
substantially affect the person's liberty and it is not possible to
countenance the view that the Court must automatically frame the
charge merely because the prosecuting authorities, by relying on the
documents referred to in Section 173, consider it proper to institute the
case. The responsibility of framing the charges is that of the Court and
it has to judicially consider the question of doing so.
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion of facts and
circumstances of the case, this court finds that the order dated
14.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby
framing charge under Sections 498-A/306 of IPC does not suffer from
any serious legal infirmity and rather it was eminently a just and fair
order and this Court finds no reason to take a different view from the
said order.
11. Resultantly, the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner
is dismissed and the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge thereby framing charge under Section 498-
A/306 of IPC is upheld. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to
appear before the Trial Court and to take appropriate legal remedies as
available under the law.
12. Finding no merit in the present petition the same is hereby
dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 11, 2016
pkb
