Delhi High Court
Mrs. Shalini Sardana vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Dlehi) & Ors on 30 October, 2018
$~10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 30th October, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 456/2018 & Crl.M.A. 8141/2018
MRS. SHALINI SARDANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Chhabra & Mr.
Satender Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DLEHI) & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for the
State with ASI Aman Kumar,
PS CWC, Nanak Pura.
Mr. Anshuj Dhingra, Adv. for
R-2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had lodged first information report (FIR) no.
38/2009 with police station Crime against Women Cell (CWC), Nanak
Pura on 07.03.2009 alleging offences punishable under Sections
498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been
committed qua her by the second to fifth respondents. It may be
mentioned here itself that she (the complainant) was married to
Somesh Sardana on 22.01.1999. During the period of her
cohabitation, two children had taken birth, the first in July 2001 and
the second in July, 2008. Her husband (Somesh Sardana) died on
26.11.2008 after prolonged illness.
2. In the FIR lodged after the death of her husband, allegations
were made levelled respecting commission of above-mentioned
offences against the second respondent (father-in-law), the third
respondent (married sister-in-law - Nanad), fourth respondent (sister-
in-law Nanad who got married on 06.11.2000) and fifth respondent
(the mother-in-law). The police submitted the final report of
investigation under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 in August, 2010 against the said four private party respondents.
The Metropolitan Magistrate having summoned them considered the
question of charge on the basis of material submitted with such final
report (charge-sheet). By order dated 06.08.2016, however, she
concluded that no charge was made out against any of the said persons
for offences under Section 498 A/34 IPC. She also found charge not
to be made out for offences under Sections 406/34 IPC against the
second to fourth respondents (the private party respondent) who were
consequently discharged. Charge for offence under Section 406 IPC,
however, was framed against the fifth respondent (the mother-in-law)
thereby taking the case to trial against her.
3. The petitioner assailed the above-mentioned order dated
06.08.2016 of the Metropolitan Magistrate before the court of
Sessions (by Crl.Rev. 243/2017). The said petition was dismissed by
order dated 12.10.2017. It is against the said orders that the petitioner
has come up to this Court by the petition at hand seeking directions for
trial to be held against the four private party respondents for offences
under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on all sides, and having gone
through the record, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the view
taken by the two courts below. Charge is not to be framed just for the
asking. There has to be cogent and credible prima facie evidence
presented to support the accusations on the basis of which the accused
can be put on trial. The case for trial of the respondents for offence
under Section 498A pressed by the petitioner fails on this muster.
5. The petitioner was married, as mentioned earlier, to Somesh
Sardana on 22.01.1999. It is clear from her own statement and other
material on record that the marriage was preceded by a love affair
between the two of them. It was thus a marriage of choice. According
to her version, the family of the deceased husband was opposed to the
matrimony. In these circumstances, the husband being wholly
supportive of her, the question of demand or harassment for dowry
would have been a matter of remote possibility.
6. Be that as it may, going by the averments in the complaint, it
appears the dispute within the family related to non-cooperation by the
respondents with the husband of the petitioner, they not helping him
out even while he was facing critical health problems. She made
allegations of certain acts of commission or omission intending to
show cruelty having been meted out to her. But there is no
explanation worth the name as to why no action was initiated in such
regard within reasonable time of such conduct having been indulged
in. Noticeably, the marriage took place on 22.01.1999. The petitioner
was silent till after her husband had died on 26.11.2008. After having
lived in a matrimonial home for a period of almost ten years, without
any explanation for delay, raises question mark as to the credibility of
the complainant's version, forming the basis for the criminal action so
initiated. As observed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the
impugned order, all the allegations relevant to the offence under
Section 498A IPC are general and non-specific. No specific incident is
mentioned as to when the illicit demands were raised. There is no
specific individual to whom demands against the backdrop of
marriage of the fourth respondent were attributed, nor the amount of
money demanded indicated. Similar is the deficiency in the context of
alleged pressure exerted on the complainant and her husband for
arrangement of money for a bigger house or for transfer of the house
in the name of the sister-in-law. The incident of 29.10.2008 was
allegedly followed by threats extended, allegations in which regard are
also general in nature.
7. In above facts and circumstances, the approach of the Court of
Magistrate, and of the revisional court, in declining to put the
respondents on trial for offence under Section 498A/34 IPC cannot be
faulted.
8. It is clear from the version of the petitioner herself that the
entrustment of dowry and other property belonging to her is attributed
to the fifth respondent only. There is no evidence showing any
complicity or sharing of common intention on the part of others.
Thus, the impugned orders discharging the rest of the accused persons
do not call for any interference. The magistrate has taken correct view
to put the fifth respondent alone on trial on the charge for offence
under Section 406 IPC.
9. There is no case made out for any interference by this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition and the pending application
are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2018
nk
