Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment quashing order of Magistrate who took cognizance of case wherein the allegations in the complaint are vague and general in nature, which was filed after about nine years of the marriage!

From Para 4,

the complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were not returned back.

There is undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused.

…

Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent..

From Para 5,

In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence.

Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339579/

Citations: [(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286], [2009] INSC 1632, [AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 2950]

Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003

Posted on May 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a landmark judgment from Hon’Ble Delhi High Court based on which recent Landmark Rajesh Sharma Judgment is delivered issuing guidelines in regards to heavy misuse is matrimonial cases.

Operating portion of judgment:

Para 19,

Only allegation against the respondents is that they did not like the clothes brought by the petitioner as customary gifts for relatives of the husband. One of the sisters-in-law remarked that had the marriage taken place with her sister, more dowry would have been received. These allegations when tested on the anvil of aforesaid tests, do not make out a case of either `cruelty’ or `harassment’ as contemplated by section 498A IPC.

Non-acceptance of gifts might have hurt her feelings and other remarks might have been unkindly and incisive but by no stretch of imagination, such a conduct involves any of the ingredients of either offence under section 498A IPC or 406 IPC.

Neither such an act nor conduct has the effect of driving the woman to commit suicide nor of causing grave injury nor is likely to cause danger to life or limb nor did it amount to tormenting her either physically or mentally to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill the demands of any property or valuable security.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is highly misconceived and is being used as a tool to hold the entire household to ransom and jeopardy. Petition is dismissed.

Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003

Citations: [2

Rekha Jain vs The State on 12 September, 2017

Posted on April 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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,

first one with general allegations pertaining to the entire duration of her stay at in-laws home
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
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”]

Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2002

Posted on April 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is from Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 498A, 406 case.

IPC 498a Not Made Out

The Civil Court in the divorce proceedings filed by Complainant has also held that the allegations levelled against the defendants that they had demanded the dowry and harassed the complainant have been found false.

This Court is of opinion that in such a short span of 13 days, demand of dowry, as has been alleged by the petitioner, could not have been made by the respondent or his family members.

This Court is conscious of a fact that in these days when the number of divorce petitions are increasing in our society, this is one of the easiest allegations to level against the husband by the wife. It is easy to level it but it is very difficult to prove the same.

Judge has allowed the divorce on the ground that the marriage between the parties is a dead marriage.

IPC 406 Not Made Out

There is no specific allegation in the complaint regarding the entrustment of dowry articles as to whom the articles were given. When there is no specific allegation, the charge cannot prove.

Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2002

Citations: [2

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: IPC 406 – Not Made Out

Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003

Rekha Jain vs The State on 12 September, 2017

Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2002