IN THE COURT OF MS [ENTITY] ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 (SHAHDARA) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI C.R. No. 321/18 The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Public Prosecutor North East District, Delhi. Revisionist Versus 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Sh. [ENTITY] 3. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] [SECTION]. Ms. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. [ENTITY] All R/o H.No. 871, DBlock, JJ Colony Shiv Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Respondents
ORDER ON REVISION PETITION :
1. The State has preferred present revision petition against impugned order dated 12.11.2018 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate whereby all the accused persons were discharged. At the outset, it is mentioned that the respondents are accused persons before the trial court. The Respondent No. 1 was accused no. 1(prospective husband); respondent nos.2 and 3 were accused nos. 2 and 3( father and mother of respondent no. 1) respectively and respondent no. [SECTION] was accused no. [SECTION](sister of the respondent no. 1) before the Ld. Trial Court.
2. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents. Trial Court record was requisitioned.
3. Heard Ld. Addl PP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the accused persons/respondents and perused the record.
[SECTION]. Ld. Addl PP has submitted that the ld. Trial court has erred in discharging the respondents though specific allegations are made by the complainant against the respondents/accused persons that the complainant and her family members presented articles to the respondents on the occasion of roka ceremony(of the complainant with the respondent no. 1) which was held on 15.12.2010 as per their capacity and despite that respondent no. 1 demanded cash of Rs.
51,000/and a CBZ motorcycle from father of the complainant which makes out a primafacie case against the respondents. He further argued that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has no power to minutely evaluate the material placed on record by the prosecution to find out as to whether primafacie case is made out against the accused persons. It is his contention that the court cannot sift the probative value of the material available on record and urged that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against the respondents. It is prayed that impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondents has submitted that impugned order is reasoned one dealing with each and every aspect of the case of prosecution and respondents have been rightly discharged. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are that a case FIR no. 161/11 under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] & [SECTION] of [ACT] was registered at Police Station Welcome against accused persons on an application under [SECTION] [ACT] Allegations as contained in the chargesheet are that [ENTITY] ceremony of the complainant Ms. [ENTITY] with accused [ENTITY] was performed on 15.12.2010; parents of the complainant spent Rs.7075,000/ besides presenting costly clothes and jewellery items to accused persons.
7. After [ENTITY] ceremony, Sh. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY], parents of accused [ENTITY] contacted parents of the complainant over telephone and told that accused [ENTITY] wanted a CBZ motorcycle and cash of Rs.51,000/, otherwise he would not marry the complainant. Mother of the complainant requested parents of the accused [ENTITY] not to demand dowry and that they were not able to meet their demands. Attempts were made to compromise the matter but of no avail.
8. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. Vide impugned order, Ld. M.M. observed that during investigation, the complainant had handed over 5 photographs of [ENTITY] ceremony, but none of them show that any costly jewellery items or clothes were being gifted to the groom's side by the complainant or her family members. It has been further observed that three bills were submitted out of which two bills do not bear the name of purchaser or of the shopkeeper; third bill pertains to a photographer; none of these bills are in the name of the complainant [ENTITY], who has come forward for registration of FIR against accused persons; even no date of alleged demand of Rs.51,000/ in cash or a motorcycle has been mentioned in the complaint.
9. Complainant [ENTITY] in her statement under [SECTION] [ACT] stated that at the time of [ENTITY] on 15.12.2010, accused persons did not make any demand of dowry and it was only on 19.12.2010, accused [ENTITY] on telephone demanded cash of Rs. 70,00075,000 and one motorcycle BZ. Mediator [ENTITY] in his statement u/[SECTION] [ACT] stated that on 15.12.2010, father of complainant, came to his house and told that accused [ENTITY] had telephoned him and demanded cash of Rs.70,00075,000 and one CBZ motorcycle, whereas [ENTITY], father of the complainant in his statement u/[SECTION] [ACT] stated that accused [ENTITY] had telephoned at his house on 16.12.2010 and demanded cash of Rs.70,00075,000/ and one CBZ motorcycle. Smt. [ENTITY], mother of the complainant, in her statement only stated that accused [ENTITY] demanded cash of Rs.70,00075,000/ and one CBZ motorcycle, however, she did not mention any date of receiving telephone call. The contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the date of alleged demand by the respondents from the father of the complainant, shows the hollowness in the case of prosecution. The improvement in the version of the complainant is also apparent from the facts alleged in the complaint and her statement u[SECTION] [ACT]. In the complaint, she stated that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 demanded cash amount of Rs. 51,000/ besides demanding CBZ motorcycle wherein in her statement u/[SECTION] [ACT], she alleged that demand of Rs. 7075,000/ was made by the respondent no. 1 on telephone.
10. Even the photographs placed on record show that respondent no. 1 [ENTITY] and his mother (respondent no.3) are presenting gifts to the complainant and not the complainant or her family members to the groom's side. 3 Kacha bills are placed on record: one bill dated 17.12.2010 pertains to S.K.Photo Studio; second bill is towards purchase of a Saree, which is without the name of purchaser. The alleged third bill is small paper slip towards purchase of a gold ring, which is even without particulars of the seller or purchaser. The alleged aforesaid bills would by no stretch of imagination infer that the complainant or her family members had even purchased the articles shown therein.
11. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has power to sift and weigh the evidence to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused but if two views are equally possible and judge is satisfied that the evidence gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the judge cannot act as mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence, any basic infirmities in the case and so on. However, it does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
12. In order to frame a charge, the evidence gathered by the prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence. In the instant case, material placed on record is not suffice to raise grave suspicion against the respondents.
13. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality, impropriety or infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.11.2018. Revision petition has no merits. Same is accordingly dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of the order.
File be consigned to record room.
MANJUSHA Location: Shahdara WADHWA Courts, Delhi Date: 2019.09.28 15:21:09 +0530 Announced in the open Court ([ENTITY]) Dated: 27.09.2019 Addl. Sessions Judge3 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi