1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SOUTH PATIALA HOUSE COURT Criminal Revision No. 222/09 State Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY] R/o J-31/B, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi 2. [ENTITY] R/o FL/50, Madangir, New Delhi 3. Smt. [ENTITY], R/o FL/50, Madangir, New Delhi Respondents Date of Institution : 03/06/09 Date when the arguments were heard/filed : 31/10/09 and 07/11/09 Date of order : 11/11/09 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY] 2 S/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o K-69/A, Pocket-K, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi 2. [ENTITY] S/o Lt. Sh. [ENTITY], R/o F-1/50, Madangir, New Delhi-62 3. Smt. [ENTITY], W/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o F-1/50, Madangir, New Delhi 4. [ENTITY]) Respondents Date of Institution : 23/09/08 Date when the arguments were heard/filed : 20/10/09 and 07/11/09 Date of order : 11/11/09 ORDER
By way of this common order, I shall dispose of [CASE NUMBER], filed by the State and 97/2008 filed by the complainant as common questions of facts and law are involved in both revision petitions. I am dictating this common order in [CASE NUMBER] and the other [CASE NUMBER] filed by the complainant [ENTITY] shall also be disposed off accordingly.
The present revision petitions under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT] are filed against the order dated 30/6/2008, passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the respondents herein were discharged.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
Prosecution case in brief is that a complaint was made by the complainant [ENTITY] against her husband accused [ENTITY], father-in-law [ENTITY] and mother-in-law [ENTITY] alleging that they used to harass her and demand dowry. She alleged that a sum of rs. 2 lacs was demanded by her husband and the two co-accused persons also supported him. It is also alleged that the father-in-law and mother-in-law have taken her streedhan unauthorizely. On this complaint, investigation was done by the police and three respondents/all the accused persons were challaned to face trial for the offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
The contention of Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the revisionist [ENTITY] in the written arguments filed, in brief, are that the trial court erred in inquiring into the truthfulness of the allegations leveled by the complainant against the respondent at the stage of framing of the charge. He submitted that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court erred in appreciating the entire evidence on record. He urged that the complaint dated 16/10/2002 filed by the complainant discloses sufficient material to raise prima facie opinion in the mind of the learned trial court that the respondents can be charged for the offences under [SECTION] [ACT].
The arguments on behalf of the respondent is that the order dated 30/6/2008, passed by the Ld. MM does not suffer from any infirmity and is just, fair and reasonable. It is contended that the present revision petitions have been filed only to harass the revisionists and thus deserve to be dismissed forthwith.
I have gone through the trial court record and written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.
It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court is not to sift the evidence to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction but the same is to be done only for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. In this regard the following decisions are worth mentioning.
In State of Bihar v. [ENTITY] AIR 1977 SC 2018, it was observed as follows:
"4 Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under [SECTION] or [SECTION] of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused "
In Union of India v. [ENTITY] Samal AIR 1979 SC 366 : 1979 Cri LJ 154, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under [SECTION] of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however 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."
In [PRECEDENT], it was further laid down by the Apex Court:
"4. These two decisions do not lay down different principles. [ENTITY]'s case has only reiterated what has been stated in [ENTITY]'s ease. In fact, [SECTION] itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused". The 'ground' in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The Court, therefore, need not under- take an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor it is necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record. if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into."
[PRECEDENT] , it was held as follows:
"18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. [ENTITY], AIR 1977 SC 2018, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of [SECTION] or [SECTION] of the [ACT]. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged; may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence."
The test for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding to frame the charge is whether the material on record, if unrebutted, is such that a conviction can be said to be reasonably possible. (See [PRECEDENT] .
From the above settled legal position and considering the order on discharge passed by the Ld. MM, it is manifest that it has exceeded and transgressed its limits and set out in the quest for seeking answer as to whether the culpability of the respondents is established via the material on record or not. Further on perusal of the complaint, it is manifest that the complainant raised specific allegations against the respondents and the allegations set out in the complaint were not vague and the allegations therein disclose material to proceed against the respondents. In the complaint it is alleged that respondent husband [ENTITY] used to beat and insult the complainant. In the last week of June 2002 he demanded Rs. 2 lacs from her saying that he had purchased a Zen car in the name of his brother and compelled her to bring Rs. 2 lacs from her father. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law also demanded Rs. 2 lacs alongwith her husband. All her jewellery has been taken away by her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She has also given list of jewellery items in complaint.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 30/6/2008 passed by the Ld. MM is set aside. The Ld. Trial court is directed to frame the charges under [SECTION] [ACT] against all the three respondents [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY]. To be checked by me for offences under [SECTION] [ACT] and proceed against the respondents. The revision petitions are allowed accordingly. The common order be sent to the server (www delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The trial court record be returned along with the copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 20/11/09. The file of the revision petition be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open ( [ENTITY] ) Court on 11/11/09 Additional Sessions Judge-01/South Patiala House Courts/New Delhi