Delhi High Court
Shweta Bhatia vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 18 January, 2019
SHAKUN ANAND
28.01.2019 11:06
$~10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th January, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3372/2016
SHWETA BHATIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Tarun and Mr. Rohit
Shukla, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for
State
Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. First Information Report (FIR) no.101/2004 was registered by
police station Shalimar Bagh for offences punishable under Sections
498A, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at the instance of the
petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant"). The case was
subjected to investigation and on the basis of evidence gathered, report
(charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr. PC) was submitted seeking trial of the second and third
respondents, they being the husband and mother-in-law respectively of
the complainant. The prosecution proposed trial to be held on charge
for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC. The
Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences on the
basis of evidence which was presented with the charge-sheet and
thereafter considered the question of charge.
2. By order dated 05.03.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate
recorded the view that no charge was made out against the third
respondent (mother-in-law). She also concluded that no charge was
made out against the second respondent (husband) for offences under
Section 498A IPC, charge, however, directed to be framed for offence
under Section 406 IPC against the second respondent (husband).
3. The above said order dated 05.03.2015 of the Metropolitan
Magistrate was challenged in the court of the Sessions by the
petitioner (complainant), the State and by the second respondent
(husband) invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the said court by
Criminal Revision Petition Nos.14/2015, 31/2015 and 17/2015
respectively. All the three revision petitions were decided by the
Additional Sessions Judge by common order dated 10.06.2016. While
upholding the view taken by the Magistrate vis-à-vis the third
respondent (mother-in-law), as indeed against the second respondent
on the accusations under Section 498A IPC, the revisional court found
that no charge was made out against the second respondent (husband)
even for offence under Section 406 IPC. Thus, the order of the
Magistrate directing such charge to be framed was also set aside and
the proceedings in the criminal case before the Metropolitan
Magistrate drawn to a close.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached this court by the
petition at hand invoking its inherent power and jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr. PC submitting that the discharge of the second and
third respondents is perverse, crucial evidence having been glossed
over and overlooked, the approach and directions of the two courts
below being improper.
5. Notice was issued on this petition by order dated 15.09.2016.
While the first respondent / State supports the petition insisting that
the discharge order was erroneous, the petition was resisted initially
by the second and third respondents.
6. When the matter is taken up today, the court is informed by the
counsel representing the second and third respondents that the third
respondent Smt. Shashi Bhatia, wife of late Sh. K.K. Bhatia, has since
passed away, the death having occurred on 07.11.2018. This fact is
orally confirmed by the counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may,
the State will be obliged to verify this fact independently.
Nonetheless, the private parties being ad idem on this submission, the
matter is considered on the assumption that the third respondent has
indeed died and the proceedings against her have abated.
7. After some hearing, on instructions from the second respondent
who is present in person, his counsel submitted, without prejudice to
his contentions and defences, that he would like to concede that charge
be framed and he be put on trial for offences under Sections 498A and
406 IPC. On perusal of the material submitted with the charge-sheet,
this court finds this fair concession of the defence to be appropriate.
8. Thus, the impugned orders of the courts below are set aside.
The petition is allowed. The proceedings in the criminal case arising
out of the aforementioned FIR before the Metropolitan Magistrate
stand revived. The trial court is directed to verify the fact of the death
of the third respondent Shashi Bhatia and thereafter proceed further to
pass appropriate orders inclusive of formal framing of charges against
the second respondent for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
All contentions of both sides are kept open on merits of the case.
Nothing in this order shall be construed as reflective of any opinion of
this court on merits.
9. The second respondent shall appear before the Metropolitan
Magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with law on
18.02.2019. Needless to add, he shall be obliged to furnish bail bonds
in terms of the order that would have been earlier passed to regulate
his presence in future.
10. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 18, 2019
yg
