Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA, J.
Ritu Sethi – Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi and Others – Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 4449 of 2014
Decided On : 06-01-2023
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The petitioner filed a petition under this section seeking to set aside the order of discharge. The High Court examined the maintainability of the petition and the scope of challenge under this section. The court also referred to relevant case law to analyze the issues. Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The High Court held that a second revision petition is not maintainable under this section. The court considered the arguments of both parties regarding the maintainability of the petition and referred to relevant case law to support its decision. Sections 498A/406/34 IPC - The petitioner filed a complaint against her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law under these sections. The court examined the allegations and the evidence presented in the charge-sheet to determine whether charges should be framed against the accused. The court upheld the framing of charges against the husband and the discharge of the mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The husband was charged under Section 498-A IPC, while the mother-in-law and sister-in-law were discharged for the offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC. The petitioner filed a revision petition seeking to set aside the order of discharge. The revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner challenged the dismissal before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court considered the maintainability of the petition and the delay in filing it. The court also examined the arguments of both parties regarding the framing of charges against the sister-in-law and the husband. The court referred to relevant case law and legal principles to analyze the issues. The court upheld the findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that a second revision petition is not maintainable under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. The court also held that the scope of challenge under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to cases where the orders are illegal or unsustainable. The court found no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower courts and upheld the discharge of the mother-in-law and sister-in-law and the framing of charges against the husband.
Result: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the orders of the lower courts.
JUDGMENT :
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.05.2013, passed by Sh. Vinay Kumar Khanna, learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2013, titled Ritu Sethi vs. State and Others, dismissing the said revision petition. Vide the said revision petition, the petitioner had sought setting aside of order on charge, dated 10.03.2013, passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi in case FIR No. 36/2003 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, Police Station: Greater Kailash-I, whereby the husband/respondent no. 3 was charged under Section 498-A IPC, whereas other accused persons namely Mrs. Suniti Sethi/mother-in-law and Ms. Mala Sethi/sister-in-law/respondent no. 2 were discharged for the offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC and the husband/respondent no. 3 was discharged for the offence under Section 406 IPC.
2. Brief factual background necessary for the disposal of the present petition is as under:
(ii) The petitioner filed a complaint dated 05.08.2002 at CWC Cell, Nanakpura, culminating into registration of FIR bearing No. 36/2003, under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC at P.S. Greater Kailash-I on 27.02.2003.
(iii) Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who took cognizance of the same on 18.10.2003. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 10.01.2013, framed charges against the Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 3 under Section 498A of the IPC, while discharging the Mother-in-law & Sister-in-law of the petitioner, under Section 498A & 406 of the IPC. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also discharged Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 3 for offence under Section 406 of the IPC.
(iv) The petitioner preferred a revision petition bearing no. 09/2013 against the aforesaid order on charge dated 10.01.2013, whereby, the petitioner sought setting aside of the order discharging the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner and the discharge of her husband, Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 3 under Section 406 of the IPC. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.05.2013.
(v) The aforesaid order dated 10.05.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide Crl. M.C. No. 4449/2014 (being disposed of by the present judgment).
(vi) During the pendency of the revision petition bearing no. 09/2013, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, i.e. Smt. Suniti Sethi passed away.
(vii) In the meantime, the trial qua the husband/Mr. Vivek Sethi for offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC continued and vide order dated 17.09.2016, Mr. Vivek Sethi, was acquitted for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by Ms. Charu Gupta, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, SED/Saket Courts, New Delhi. The said judgment of acquittal was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. Appeal No. 29/2016, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The said criminal appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2018 by Sh. Girish Kathpalia, District & Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment dated 20.01.2018, the petitioner preferred criminal revision petition being Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 471/2019 pending before this Court.
(viii) It is pertinent to mention that the connected matters, i.e. the present petition bearing no. Crl. M.C. No. 4449/2014 and the revision petition bearing no. Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 471/2019, arise out of two separate impugned judgments, dated 10.05.2013 and 17.09.2016 respectively, passed at two different stages of trial, there
A second revision petition is not maintainable under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.; mere allegations without sufficient evidence do not justify charges under IPC Sections 406 and 498A.
In appeals against acquittal, courts must respect the presumption of innocence and should only interfere if the trial's conclusions are shown to be perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of evid....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the material on record and ascertaining if the essential ingredients of an offence are prima facie made out at the st....
The withdrawal of a complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused, and a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action is not maintainable. The revisional court's power is limited to procedu....
Charges framed under Sections 498A and 323 IPC quashed due to lack of specific allegations and evidence, preventing abuse of process of law.
Court confirmed that charges must be based on prima facie evidence during the discharge stage, and only extremely implausible allegations warrant quashing of charges.
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
