Delhi High Court
Rajesh Bajaj Alias Rajesh Kumar vs State & Anr on 6 July, 2018
$~7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 6th July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 2544/2018 & CRL.M.A. 9048-9049/2018
RAJESH BAJAJ ALIAS RAJESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav with
Mr. Ruchira Arora & Mr.
Dhananjay Mehlawat, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, APP
for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing prosecution in criminal case arising out
of FIR No.446/2013 of P.S. Saket under Sections 498A/406/34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered on the basis of report under
Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted
on 26.09.2016 by the investigating agency. The Metropolitan
Magistrate in seisin of the case had taken cognizance on the said
report and summoned the petitioner and three others as accused. By
order dated 01.11.2017, she framed charges under Sections 498A/406
IPC against the petitioner and separate charges under Section 498A
against the two co-accused discharging the fourth accused finding no
grounds to substantiate the allegations.
2. The petitioner and the other two accused against whom the
charges were thus framed challenged the said order before the court of
Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. (Crl. Revision No.457/2017). The said petition was disposed
of by the court of Sessions by order dated 28.03.2018 upholding the
order framing charge against the petitioner but setting aside the same
against two other accused thereby discharging them.
3. The petitioner has come up to this Court invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order
dated 28.03.2018of the revisional court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegations in the case by the complainant Sanju Bajaj (wife of the
petitioner) are ill conceived, unfounded and incredible for the reason
the parties were married to each other on 05.12.1985 and out of their
cohabitation children took birth, the complainant having made
allegations of cruelty, including on the ground of demand of dowry,
even against her own elder sons. Reliance is placed on judgments
reported as Basant Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2002 (101) DLT 470
Lawpack; Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2013)
14 SCC 374; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2009) 14
SCC 466 and Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
(2010) 7 SCC 667.
5. While it does appear that the allegations of demand of dowry by
her own sons, stated to be in concert with the petitioner, seem a little
out of place requiring closer scrutiny, it has to be kept in mind that the
charge under Section 498A IPC which has already been framed, does
not depend entirely on a case being made out of cruelty arising out of
such illicit desire of the accused. For purposes of the penal clause in
Section 498A IPC, the expression "cruelty" has been defined by the
explanation and includes any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the woman. In the evidence which has been gathered during the
investigation, the complainant is shown to have been subjected to
continuous harrassment, such acts representing prima facie wilful
conduct of the nature mentioned above.
6. Be that as it may, against the above backdrop a more
fundamental question arises as to whether the petitioner having
availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to take recourse
of Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a substitute for bringing virtually a second
revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section
397(3) Cr.P.C.
7. This Court in almost similar fact situation, taking note of the
decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni,
(1997) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and
Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr.,
(2005) 2 SCC 571 and following similar view taken by a learned
single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr.,
ILR (2012) 3 Del 99, in absence of a special case being made out, has
earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in
Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
8. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand
for the revisional court's view to be disturbed. The petition and the
pending applications are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY6, 2018
srb
