This is a good judgment from Justice Sh. Ashutosh Kumar at Delhi District Court at Rohini Court, Delhi. Many law points are elucidated with support from various orders from Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Courts.

Intro

Knife filed three complaints to Police,

1. first one with general allegations pertaining to the entire duration of her stay at in-laws home
2. another complaint to ACP, again, with general allegations pertaining to the entire duration of her stay at in-laws home, which she claims was withdrawn under pressure from in-laws
3. another complaint to ACP, after a gap of 7 months, seeking reopening of the complaint #2, this time with improved allegations such as dowry demand and taking away of entire jewelry and few financial allegations such as NOT helping her to recharge her phone, NOT payment of fee of her M.Sc. II year

Proceedings

Interestingly, advocate for the husband and his family relied on a catena of 33 judgments.

Advocate for Knife tried to argue that revision petition is not maintainable as per section 397 Cr.P.C since the order framing of charge is an interlocutory order, which was binned by the Hon’ble Judge by saying ‘from law laid down in catena of subsequent judgments which are still valid, it has been well settled that the order framing of charge is not an interlocutory order and hence revision petition against the same would be maintainable.‘

Since the order framing of charge substantially affects the rights of accused and in case the plea of the accused is accepted in revision against order of framing of charge, it would finally culminate the proceedings, thus the order of framing of charge cannot be said to be interlocutory.

In Para 12,

the Judge observed, it is clear that there is no specific allegation of the harassment or beating of the complainant relating to cruelty towards her as defined in section 498A IPC i.e. for fulfillment of dowry demand or to force the complainant to commit suicide.

In Para 14,

it was held, it is clear that the said complaint was pertaining to all incidents of harassment and cruelty towards the complainant which occurred during her stay at matrimonial home and NOT with respect to incident dated 30.07.2013 only, when she was turned out of matrimonial home. Nowhere in the said complaint dated 04.08.2013, the complainant had stated that other  incidents of cruelty towards her by in-laws, shall be disclosed subsequently.

… no cruelty relating to dowry demand as envisaged u/s 498A IPC or which may have forced the complainant to commit suicide, is
prima facie made out. Thus from the initial two complaints dated 04.08.2013 and 05.08.2013 of the complainant, no offence u/s 498A, 406 IPC or 506 IPC is made out.

… it was held that first version as disclosed in the complaint is always important for adjudicating as to whether the accused has committed or not committed an offence and if the complaint lacks essential ingredients, lacuna or deficiency, same cannot be filled by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement and effort on the part of police to supply deficiency and cover up a lacuna of complaint was totally unwarranted and an abuse of process of law.

In Para 15,

Even as per complainant, she was the only one who was the eye witness to her alleged harassment and beating etc. Statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of other two material witnesses namely Sub. Maj. Hari Chand (father) and Darshana Devi (mother) of the complainant regarding alleged incidents, are hearsay and will not be admissible in evidence.

It is pertinent to mention that revisionist Neetu Jain [in CR No.53/16 (New No.49934/16)], has not been even named in any of the initial two complaints. There is no allegation against Neetu Jain for causing simple hurt to complainant in any of the two initial complaints. There is no MLC of the complainant on record regarding any of her alleged beatings or torture.

Nowhere in the initial two complaints, the complainant has alleged that the revisionist/husband Shasak Jain had extended any threat to kill her, as a result of which any alarm was caused to her. Thus no offence u/s 506 IPC is made out against the revisionist Shasak
Jain.

In none of the initial two complaints the complainant had alleged that she had entrusted her istridhan articles including gold jewellery to revisionist Rekha Jain and Neetu Jain. Rather in the third complaint only she has stated so and in the last she has stated that the said jewellery is with her motherinlaw now. As already discussed above, third complaint in this regard cannot be looked into as the same appears to be improvement.

However from the allegations in the first complaint, prima facie offence u/s 323/34 IPC is made out against the revisionists Shasak Jain and Rekha Jain, since no MLC is required for proving the offence u/s 323 IPC.

[pdf-embedder url=”http://www.shadesofknife.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Smt.-Rekha-Jain-vs-The-State-on-12-September-2017.pdf” title=”Smt. Rekha Jain vs The State on 12 September, 2017″]

Read the other Judgments cited in this order here.

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]