IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Bhawna Grover - Appellant
Versus
State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 2437 of 2023 & CRL.M.A. 9285-86 of 2023, 11957 of 2023, 13557 of 2023, 13561 of 2023, 22091-92 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [498A/406/506/34 of IPC] - The court discussed the legality of the order on charge dated 17.08.2020, the dropping of prosecution witnesses, and the discharge of PW-2. The court found no illegality in the order passed by the learned Mahila Court on 17.08.2020 and set aside the order dated 29.03.2023 to re-call the witnesses and PW-2 for examination.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought various reliefs related to a case of harassment and deception by in-laws, leading to the filing of FIR and a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality in the order passed by the learned Mahila Court on 17.08.2020 and set aside the order dated 29.03.2023 to re-call the witnesses and PW-2 for examination.
Issues: The legality of the order on charge dated 17.08.2020, the dropping of prosecution witnesses, and the discharge of PW-2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no illegality in the order passed by the learned Mahila Court on 17.08.2020 and set aside the order dated 29.03.2023 to re-call the witnesses and PW-2 for examination.
Final Decision: The present petition along with pending applications stand disposed of. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks following prayers:
"a) call for the record of proceedings of FIR No.130/2012 (MC No.5551389/2016) pending before the learned Mahila Court-04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi;
b) pass orders for summoning Respondents No.2 and 3 to face trial before the learned Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi;
c) set aside the order dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure-P/1);
d) stay the proceedings pending in FIR No.130/2012 (MC No.5551389/2016) pending before the learned Mahila Court-04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi till the disposal of this petition;
e) set aside the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the learned trial court in FIR No.130/2012 and restore 2 prosecution witnesses of CAW Cell, dropped vide order dated 29.03.2023 on the basis of statement U/s 294 Cr.P.C. of the 2 accused;
f) restore the PW2 and further examination of PW2 discharged on 29.03.2023 by the learned trial court and allow further time to the prosecution for his examination after locating the police file;..."
2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present petition, as disclosed by the petitioner are that she had got married to Sh. Nishant Grover (brother of Respondent no. 2 herein) on 16.04.2001 at Delhi and a son was born out of their wedlock on l0.02.2003. Ever since the marriage, the respondents herein, who are the sister and brother-in-law of petitioner's husband and the other accused persons had been causing harassment to the petitioner. It is stated that respondents no. 2 and 3 have a strong influence on the working of other family members of the in-laws of the petitioner. It is stated that in the year 2001, respondents no. 2 and 3, the husband and parent's in-laws of the petitioner and one Mr. Ravi Kharbanda, had conspired together and had deceived petitioner's parents while arranging the marriage between the petitioner and Sh. Nishant Grover and had misrepresented that he was a graduate whereas he was only 12th pass. On the other hand, the petitioner herein is a well-educated woman. As mentioned in the petition, it was well known to in-laws of petitioner as well as the respondents that the petitioner is the only daughter of her wealthy parents and thus they had demanded a car, besides other expensive electronic gadgets, articles, furniture and expensive gifts for themselves and their relatives. It is also stated that they all desired for performance of marriage functions in high class hotels/banquet hall or some expensive venue, so as to boost their image in their society. As alleged, the petitioner's parents had spent more than Rs. 45 lacs on the marriage of their daughter. Further, the petitioner's parents used to spend huge amount of money on all festivals and occasions including birth of child, and about Rs. 6 lakhs was given as cash on such occasions to the in-laws of petitioner. It is further the case of petitioner that her parents had also given expensive clothes, gold jewellery, silver cutlery, etc. to her and her in-laws. However, respondents no. 2 and 3 and the in-laws of petitioner used to continuously harass the petitioner and she had to suffer insult and humiliation due to ridiculing, demeaning and humiliating remarks of respondents and petitioner's husband and in-laws.
3. As stated, the petitioner had filed some complaints before the police, for her protection, on 28.07.2010, 30.11.2010 and 20.08.2011, and undertakings were given to the police by the husband and in-laws of the petitioner on 13.09.2011, assuring peaceful life to petitioner.
However, the petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint to the police authorities and CAW Cell (West), Delhi, and thereafter, FIR No. 130/2012 was registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') which is pending trial before the learned Mahila Court-04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
The court upheld the legality of the order on charge dated 17.08.2020 and set aside the order dated 29.03.2023 to re-call the witnesses and PW-2 for examination.
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 main legal point established is that issues raised prematurely and based on separate acquittals cannot automatically warrant the quashing of a complaint under the PWDV Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of challenging two concurrent findings under Section 482 of the CrPC is limited, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illeg....
At the stage of framing charges, the Court should only consider whether a prima facie case is made out, without conducting a mini trial or examining the probative value of evidence.
The discretion to discharge the accused under Section 249 Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and not automatically upon the complainant's absence.
Vague and general allegations without specific particulars do not constitute legal offences, safeguarding against misuse of criminal law.
Application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires compelling evidence against newly added accused, with discretion to be exercised sparingly based on sufficiency and cogency of evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.