Delhi High Court
Mohan Lal & Anr vs Sandeep Aggarwal on 31 July, 2018
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 31st July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4176/2015 and Crl. M.A. 14948/2015
MOHAN LAL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohan Lal, Advocate
versus
SANDEEP AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Rajan,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The respondent had filed a criminal complaint case (CC
no.871/14) on 24.08.2006 impleading the petitioners as second and
third prospective accused, in addition to their daughter Priyanka
Agarwal as first prospective accused and one Sanjay Gupta as fourth
prospective accused, alleging offences punishable under Sections 415,
420, 506, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On the basis of
the preliminary inquiry, in which the respondent examined himself as
the sole witness (CW-1), the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated
10.10.2011, issued process summoning the petitioners for offence
under Section 417 / 34 IPC observing that no case for summoning of
other two had been made out.
2. The petitioners challenged the said summoning order by
approaching this court in Crl. M.C. 1356-1357/2013 which was
disposed of, by order dated 06.05.2014, permission to withdraw the
same having been granted with liberty given to raise all pleas before
the trial court.
3. The Metropolitan Magistrate considered the material on record
for taking the case further into trial. By order dated 24.11.2014, he
found all the ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 417
IPC had not been satisfied. Thus, by order dated 24.11.2014, the
petitioners were discharged.
4. The above-said order was challenged by the respondent in the
court of the Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by petition
(Crl. R. No.03/15) which was decided by order dated 26.08.2015. The
Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Metropolitan
Magistrate and directed the petitioners to be put on trial for the offence
for which they had been earlier summoned.
5. It is the afore-said order which was challenged by the petition
at hand under Section 482 Cr. PC.
6. The factual matrix of the case is not very complicated. The
respondent (complainant) was married to Priyanka Agarwal, daughter
of the petitioners, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi on
10.12.2005. It is alleged by him in the complaint that after marriage it
was revealed that Priyanka Agarwal suffers from chronic
schizophrenia. He alleged that the petitioners being parents were well
aware of such medical condition of the girl and they had themselves
represented as to her good health and thereby had introduced him to
marry her and consequently he had been cheated. The petitioners
deny that their daughter suffers from any such mental ailment, their
version being that the allegations are false and concocted, some other
reasons (illicit relations with another girl) being the cause for marital
discord.
7. The crucial issue that needs to be addressed in these
proceedings, however, is as to whether evidence has been adduced to
demonstrate that Priyanka Agarwal suffered from any such mental
disorder at, around or before the time of her marriage as is attributed
and, more importantly, as to whether there is evidence to show that the
petitioners were aware of any such condition.
8. In the considered opinion of this court, the Metropolitan
Magistrate had examined the matter from the correct perspective and
had taken a proper view by the order dated 24.11.2014 which did not
merit being set aside by the revisional court, the view of the latter
being based on certain unfounded assumptions.
9. As noted earlier, the respondent (complainant) has offered
himself as the solitary witness (CW-1). He did depose about certain
conduct of Priyanka after marriage particularly on 10.12.2005,
11.12.2005, 14.12.2005 which seems to be not normal or out of the
ordinary. But then, from the conduct narrated, one cannot jump to the
conclusion that she is a case of chronic schizophrenia. The
complainant is not a medical expert. His words in this regard cannot
take his case further.
10. The complainant has relied on three documents purporting to be
clinical notes (Ex. CW1/1 to 3); the first of the out-patient department
(OPD) of Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS)
dated 03.02.2006; the second, OPD slip of Hindu Rao Hospital dated
01.02.2006; and the third OPD slip of All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS) dated 06.02.2006. He has not examined any of the
medical officers who may have examined Priyanka in the OPD of the
said three hospitals on 03.02.2006, 01.02.2006 or 06.02.2006
respectively. Without the said doctors being examined or some
official from the said hospital being called in to prove that it was
Priyanka who was medically examined in the OPD of such facilities, it
cannot be concluded that these clinical notes or prescription relate to
her. In the first two OPD slips, there is no diagnosis indicated. Mere
prescription of certain medicines cannot lead to the conclusion that the
patient (assuming it was Priyanka, daughter of the petitioners),
suffered from such mental ill health, as is alleged. In the OPD slip of
AIIMS, the diagnosis "hebephrenia" is qualified by a question mark.
There is nothing indicated in the said clinic notes from which a
detailed diagnostic procedure having been undertaken can be inferred.
Even the identity of the doctor or his credentials are not indicated in
any material submitted as evidence.
11. In his testimony, CW-1 would not utter even a single word to
the effect that the petitioners had prior knowledge of any illness, this
assuming Priyanka suffered from ill health.
12. For above reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
of the revisional court is set aside and the order of the Metropolitan
Magistrate dropping the proceedings against the petitioners is restored,
this bringing curtain on the criminal complaint of the respondent.
13. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 31, 2018
yg
