The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and material particulars to uphold charges under sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and the need to weigh evidence for framing charges.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. These are two petitions seeking setting aside of the orders dated 26.08.2022, 31.08.2022 and 17.09.2022 passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court-02), East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Case No 1123/2019 in FIR No. 353/2017, whereby the charges were framed against the revisionists/petitioners u/s 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The circumstances in which the present petitions arise are that the marriage between Ms. Anju Kumari/R-2 and Mr. Puneet Kumar/P-1 (in Crl.Rev 49/2023) was solemnized on 29.05.2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. A son was born out of wedlock. Pursuant to a complaint by R-2/complainant with the CAW Cell, East District, a FIR No.353/17 dated 30.09.2017 was registered against namely i) Mr. Puneet Kumar, ii) Mr. Komal Singh/father-in-law (P-2 in Crl.Rev 49/2023), iii) Mrs. Santosh Devi/mother-in-law (P-2 in Crl.Rev 48/2023), iv) Mr. Manoj Kumar/elder brother-in-law (P-1 in Crl.Rev 48/2023), v) Mr. Sumit@Sunny/younger brother-in-law of R-2; alleging that R-2 has suffered cruelty and harassment at the hands of the said persons because of repeated demands of dowry. She further alleged that they have usurped her stridhan, which was and continues to be in their possession.

3. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court on 26.08.2022 while relying on the case of UOI v Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 discharged Mr. Sumit Kumar@Sunny stating that from the perusal of the complaint and the statement of R-2 under section 164 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), no specific allegation is raised against him. However, it records that in light of the observations and discussions raised, section 498A/406/34 is attracted against the present petitioners and hence charges are to be framed against them. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.08.2022 reads, inter-alia, as under:

"***

In the lite of the aforesaid observation and discussions, Section 498A/406/34 IPC is attracted against the accused persons Puneet Kumar, Komal Singh, Santosh and Manoj Kumar. Accordingly, put up for framing of charge u/s 498A/406/34 IPC against the accused Vineet Kumar, Komal Singh, Santosh and Manoj Kumar on 31.08.2022."

4. The charges against Mr. Puneet Kumar and Mr. Komal Singh were framed on 31.08.2022, and against Mr. Manoj Kumar and Ms. Santosh Devi on 17.09.2022. The orders are identical. For the sake of brevity, the order dated 31.08.2022 is reproduced, inter-alia, as under:

"I, SHAZADI HALIMA SADIYA, MM (Mahila Court-2) East, KKD courts, Delhi do hereby charge against all the accused persons namely 1) Puneet Kumar and 2) Komal Singh as follows:

That during the period from the date of marriage of the complainant Smt. Anju D/o Sh. Veer Singh with accused Puneet Kumar on 29.05.2014 till the registration of present FIR, while staying at H. No. 46A, DDA Flats, Dwarka, Delhi you both accused persons alongwith accused Manoj Kumar and Santosh Devi, in furtherance of your common intention had subjected the complainant Smt. Anju to physical cruelty coupled with mental cruelty in order to coerce her to fulfill your unlawful demands and demand for dowry as mentioned in the complaint itself and thereby you all accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A/34 IPC, 1860 and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that during period and at the place stated above, you both accused persons alongwith accused Manoj Kumar and Santosh Devi, in furtherance of your common intention had misappropriated the istridhan/dowry articles of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint as well as other documents on charge sheet and did not return the same despite demands of the complainant and thus you all accused persons have committed an offence under Section 406/34 IPC, 1860 and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct you both the accused persons be tried for the aforesaid offence within the cognizance of this court."

5. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred the present revision petitio