Delhi High Court
Anjana Rani vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 26 October, 2018
$~11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 26th October, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 4588/2015
ANJANA RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Krishan Sharma,
Advocate with Ms. Garima
Kaushik, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for the
State with SI Prem Raj, PS
Vijay Vihar.
Mr. Kishan Nautiyal, Adv. for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The First Information Report (FIR) No.85/2012 was registered
on 12.03.2012 by Police Station Vijay Vihar on the complaint of the
petitioner, she leveling allegations against her husband, the second
respondent, of he having committed certain acts of commission and
omission constituting offences punishable under Sections 498-
A/406/34 on Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On conclusion of the
investigation report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted on which
cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate. By order dated
15.01.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate found charge made out to put
the second respondent on trial for offences under Section 498-A/406
IPC. The second respondent challenged the said order in the court of
Sessions by Criminal Revision Petition No.33/2015 which was
decided by order dated 14.08.2015, the revisional court setting aside
the order of the Magistrate and directing the second respondent to be
discharged holding, inter alia, that no prima facie case has been made
out against him.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has come up to this court
invoking inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. assailing the view taken by the revisional court. The
petition is resisted by the second respondent while the first respondent
(State) supports the grievance raised by the complainant (the
petitioner).
3. The revisional court in the impugned order has taken note, inter
alia, of the law governing the question of consideration of a criminal
case for charge as explained in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366. In later decision of the Supreme Court
reported as Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, the principles
governing the question of charge were explained thus:-
21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing
the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. The test to
determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts
of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused
was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For
this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise
to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,
the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the
accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial
will end in conviction or acquittal."
4. The parties herein were married to each other on 25.04.2008.
The petitioner had reasons to approach the police earlier with similar
grievances against the second respondent and at her instance on her
complaint, FIR No.258/2009 was registered by Police Station Vijay
Vihar. The second respondent, however, persuaded the petitioner to
resume cohabitation, the parties deciding to bury the hatchet. On the
basis of settlement then reached, a petition (Crl.M.C.1057/2010)
having been filed in this court, the proceedings arising out of the said
FIR No.258/2009 were quashed. It may be added here that the
petitioner had also simultaneously approached the criminal court with
a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. In the wake of the amicable settlement, she was
persuaded to withdraw the said petition as well.
5. The petitioner approached the police again on 12.03.2012
referring to the past conduct and history and stating, inter alia, that the
second respondent had continued with his conduct whereby she was
being subjected to cruelty by him, he also having continued to demand
dowry, extending threats to her, he having physically assaulted her
several times, picking up quarrels and extending threats to kill her and
take away the child of the parties forcibly from her.
6. Whilst the Metropolitan Magistrate found the evidence gathered
in the wake of investigation into the fresh FIR to be sufficient, the
revisional court has trashed the case of the petitioner primarily on the
reasoning that the allegations made by her are "not specific", they
being "vague" . It has further been noted in the revisional court's
order that the stridhan articles of the petitioner had been seized during
the investigation into earlier FIR No.258/2009 and had been handed
over to her and the second respondent had also paid an amount of
Rs.1.5 lacs to her "in lieu of jewellery" at that stage. This, in the
opinion of the revisional court, renders it a case where the charge of
criminal breach of trust could not be leveled.
7. Having heard both sides and having gone through the record,
this court finds the reasons set out in the revisional court's order
declining the plea for charge under Section 406 IPC to be just and
proper. Indeed, since the stridhan articles had been seized and
restored to the custody and control of the petitioner (complainant) the
second respondent even having paid money in lieu of the jewllery
which was found deficient at that stage, there being no fresh case of
any entrustment of stridhan articles or any property of the petitioner,
there is no basis for the second respondent to be put in trial on the
charge for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
8. But, in the given facts and circumstances and having regard to
the evidence that has been presented with the charge sheet submitted
pursuant to the second FIR, particularly the version of the petitioner, it
cannot be said that no case is made out for the offence under Section
498-A IPC. It is not correct to trash her case on the ground that her
allegations are vague or non specific. On the contrary, she has clearly
stated the circumstances constituting acts of commission or omission
which render it a case of cruelty within the meaning of the expression
used in Section 498-A IPC.
9. In these circumstances, it was incorrect and improper on the
part of the revisional court to have interfered with the view taken by
the court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
10. For the foregoing reasons and in the circumstances, the petition
is partly allowed. The order dated 26.03.2015 of the Metropolitan
Magistrate to the extent thereby second respondent was directed to be
put on trial on the charge under Section 498-A IPC stands restored and
revived. The order of discharge for that offence passed by the
revisional court shall stand vacated. The proceedings in the criminal
case will continue accordingly.
11. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned criminal
court on 4th December, 2018.
12. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 26, 2018/vk
