1 IN THE COURT OF BHUPESH KUMAR SPL. JUDGE, (PC ACT) CBI01, (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI CR No.59/2015 Unique Case ID No. :02[SECTION]R0363422015 Mr.[ENTITY], s/o Sh.Raghunath Singh r/o 4/95, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. U.P. Revisionist Vs. [ENTITY] (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) Respondent Date of Institution :09.11.2015 Arguments Heard on:05.01.2016 Date of Decision:05.01.2016 O R D E R
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist against impugned orders dated 06.07.2015 and 10.08.2015 passed by Ld. MM vide which the charge under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the petitioner/revisionist.
2. Notice of the revision was issued to [ENTITY].
Trial Court record was summoned.
3. Arguments of Sh.[ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for revisionist heard. No arguments advanced on behalf of [ENTITY]. However, the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Spl Judge ([ACT]/South/05.01.2016 complainant is present in person and has advanced certain arguments in rebuttal.
4. Before proceeding further it is necessary to reproduce the brief facts of the matter as emerged from the record of learned Trial Court. In this matter on the basis of complaint of complainant Smt. [ENTITY], initially FIR under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered at PS Mehrauli. In the complaint, the complainant has, inter alia, alleged that she was married to Mr.[ENTITY] on 20.4.06. In the marriage the parents of the complainant have spent around Rs.23.0 lac. Immediately after the marriage the complainant came to know that her inlaws were not satisfied with the dowry of the complainant. The complainant has received sum of Rs.2.30 lac as 'Shagun' from her relatives and father of complainant has given this amount to the revisionist (fatherinlaw of complainant) to deposit the same in the bank account of the complainant, but till date the said amount has not been deposited. The other gifts received by the complainant in her marriage from her relatives were kept by her inlaws in a separate room on the ground that same were not according to their status. However, motherin law and fatherinlaw of complainant without her consent have given certain items from said gift items in the marriage of their daughter [ENTITY]. It has been further alleged that after two days of marriage, mother in law and father in law of complainant have taken all her jewellery items to keep the same in safe custody but the said jewellery has not been returned to the complainant despite repeated demands by her. The complainant has further leveled allegations of demand of dowry including luxury car, mental [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Spl Judge ([ACT]/South/05.01.2016 and physical harassment on account of dowry in the complaint.
After registration of FIR, offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] was added to the investigation. But the offence was dropped by the police at the time of filing of chargsheet. However, after concluding investigation, chargsheet U/[SECTION] [ACT] was filed against accused [ENTITY] and present revisionist.
Vide impugned order dated 06.7.2014 and 10.08.2015 charge under [SECTION] of [ACT] was framed against the accused/revisionist.
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has submitted that in the complaint, the complainant has leveled only general allegations against the revisionist. There are no specific allegations of demand of dowry or entrustment of any property against the revisionist, hence, no charge is made out against the revisionist.
It has been further submitted that the complainant is residing in her matrimonial home, whereas, the petitioner is residing out of Delhi. As per chargsheet, all the Stridhan has already been returned to the complainant, which is in her possession. The reliance has been made in cases Dilawar Balu Kurane vs [ENTITY] of Maharashtra,Crl.A No.8/2002; Sarbans Singh and ors. Vs [ENTITY] of NCT of Delhi, 2005(2) ALT (Cri)2 and [PRECEDENT]. On the basis of these submissions, prayer has been made to allow the revision petition.
6. On the other hand, the complainant has submitted that the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Spl Judge ([ACT]/South/05.01.2016 jewellery items which were taken by the revisionist from her, were not returned on her demand.
7. Heard. Material perused.
The complainant in her complaint has specifically stated that after the marriage, her father has given Rs.2.30 lac to the revisionist to deposit the same in the bank account of the complainant but the same has not been deposited till date. Further, the complainant has specifically stated that her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw have taken entire jewellery items from her to keep the same in safe custody and that jewellery items have not been returned to her even on demand. It has also been alleged that the revisionist alongwith his wife has given certain gift items belonged to the complainant to their daughter [ENTITY], in her marriage, without her consent. Further the complainant has also made allegation of demand of dowry and physical and mental harassment, inter alia, at hands of the revisionist, in her complaint. Whether all these allegations can be termed as specific allegations or not; if these allegations are sustainable or not; if the complainant has already received the entire articles, can be looked into at the time of trial only, after framing of charge by providing proper opportunity to parties to cross examine the witnesses and not at this stage. At this stage, the Court is required to see if, prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the revisionist or not.
8. In the light of the allegations leveled by the complainant in her complaint, inter alia, against the present revisionist, it is found that [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Spl Judge ([ACT]/South/05.01.2016 there is sufficient material on record to frame charge under [SECTION] [ACT] against the revisionist. I have carefully gone through the judgments in cases Dilawar Balu Kurane vs [ENTITY] of Maharashtra, [PRECEDENT] Sarbans Singh vs [ENTITY]d of NCT of Delhi (Supra) relied upon by the revisionist and it is found that the findings of the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, no illegality or infirmity has been found in the impugned orders and there is no justified reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The impugned orders are upheld and consequently, the present revision stands dismissed.
9. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith the copy of this order.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court ([ENTITY]) Today on 05.01.2016 Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI01(South) Saket Courts : New Delhi. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Spl Judge ([ACT]/South/05.01.2016