Vipul Kumar Rohilla & Ors. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 289 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               RESERVED ON : 1st DECEMBER, 2015
                                DECIDED ON : 14th JANUARY, 2016

+     CRL.REV.P.727/2014 & CRL.M.A.No.18492/2014

      VIPUL KUMAR ROHILLA & ORS.                    ..... Petitioners
                          Through :    Mr.M.S.Rohilla, Advocate.

                          versus

      THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP.
                              Ms.Manika Tripathi Pandey,
                              Advocate with Mr.Ashutosh
                              Kaushik, Advocate for R2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners

under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the

legality and correctness of a judgment dated 29.09.2014 of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge in Crl.A.94/2013. The petition is contested by the

respondent No.2.

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

examined the file. The petitioners are facing trial in case FIR No.138/2002

registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on respondent No.2's

complaint. Certain dowry articles recovered during investigation were

seized vide seizure memo (Annexure 'P2') Ex.PW-3/A on 27.05.2002.

These articles were released on superdari to the respondent No.2 with the

condition to produce as and when required by the Court. When the case

was fixed for recording complainant's statement, the petitioners urged the

Court to direct her to produce the said articles. The Trial Court vide order

dated 19.08.2013 directed her to bring the entire dowry articles. On

16.09.2013, the complainant did not produce the dowry articles and

moved an application for taking the photographs on record. She expressed

inability to produce these articles due to transportation expenses. She was

again directed to produce the articles vide order dated 16.09.2013. The

order was challenged by the complainant in Crl.A. 94/2013 where the

appellate Court asked the Investigating Officer to take photographs of the

articles in the presence of the petitioners. The matter was remanded by

this Court in a revision petition No.727/2013 filed by the petitioners

against the said order. Again, by the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2014

the Appellate Court declined to compel the complainant to produce these

articles.

3. Of course, complainant was duty bound to produce the dowry

articles released on superdari as and when directed by the Trial Court.

Since the Trial Court had asked the complainant to produce these articles,

she was expected to produce it in the Court. On that score, the order of the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate can't be faulted.

4. The petitioners have, however, not given any reasons for

compelling the complainant to produce all these dowry articles at the time

of her examination before the Court. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor did

not insist for the production of these articles at the time of recording

complainant's statement before the Trial Court. It has come on record that

these house-hold articles of insignificant value were recovered by the

Investigating Agency in the presence of the petitioners from the

matrimonial home way back in 2002 vide seizure memo dated 27.05.2002

(Annexure P3). The petitioners have claimed ownership of these articles.

The ownership of these articles has yet not been decided. The Trial Court

was not bound to order production of the dowry articles on the mere

asking of the petitioners. The petitioners were at liberty to urge the Trial

Court to take adverse view for non-production of case property at the time

of final disposal of the case. Apparently, at the time of examination of the

complainant, the petitioners could not have forced the State or the

complainant to produce all these articles which were recovered in their

presence and only ownership of which was in dispute. For determination

of the ownership, production of the dowry articles before the Court was

not required. It appears that production of these dowry articles has been

sought only to harass the complainant to transport these house-hold

articles from her residence to the Court.

5. I find no merit in the present petition. It is, however, made

clear that if the complainant is asked by the State or Court for some

reasons to produce these articles during trial, its transportation costs shall

be borne by State / Court respectively.

6. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record (if any) be

sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 14, 2016 / tr