IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JULY 14, 2011 POONAM BASSI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JS Wasu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This revision petition has been filed in challenge to order dated 9.4.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the revision petition of the private respondents/accused has been accepted and they have been ordered to be discharged. 2 The sequence of facts, in brief, is that petitioner- Poonam Bassi was married to Sudhakar Bassi (who is not a respondent herein) on 30.9.1998. Out of the wedlock, one son was born on 4.11.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that disputes started in the year 2006, whereupon allegations were levelled against the husband regarding maltreatment and the petitioner left matrimonial home and came to Patiala. With the Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 2 intervention of respectables, a compromise was effected and, again, the petitioner accompanied Sudhakar Bassi to New Delhi to live in matrimonial home. Differences again arose and the petitioner again went back to Patiala and, finally, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). She also made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala on 31.3.2008, whereupon FIR No.414 dated 6.9.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sadar Patiala, was registered against six persons, which included husband-Sudhakar Bassi, his father-Kewal Krishan Bassi, a 75 years old man, Sadhana Handa, sister of the husband, Rakesh Handa, husband of Sadhana Handa, Savita Sood, another sister of the husband, and Sarabjit Handa. 3 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, framed charges under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code, against all the accused. 4 Aggrieved by the framing of charges, a revision petition was preferred by all the six accused on the ground that from 1998 till May, 2006, relations between the husband and wife were cordial. After 8 years, the problems in matrimonial life occurred. It has been brought out that on 22.1.2006, mother of Sudhakar Bassi passed away. Father of Sudhakar Bassi, being 75 years of age, was required to be taken care of by the only son i.e. Sudhakar Bassi, and therefore, he applied to his employer i.e. Hindustan Petroleum, to transfer him to New Delhi, to take on the responsibilities of a son towards a father. Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Sudhakar Bassi was posted at New Delhi in May, 2006. The petitioner left her matrimonial home on 20.6.2006. The petitioner was, again, rehabilitated in New Delhi in the matrimonial home, on 11.3.2007, however, she again left the matrimonial home on 18.3.2007 and filed a complaint on 18.4.2007. The complaint was withdrawn on 23.12.2007 and she again started residing with Sudhakar Bassi. She, however, again left her matrimonial home on 28.3.2008 and started living in Patiala. Yet again, a complaint under the Act was filed on 31.3.2008. On the same day, a complaint was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, whereupon the FIR has been lodged. 5 It has been brought out that the sisters of the husband i.e. respondents No.2 and 4, were married in the year 1984 i.e. much prior to the marriage of the petitioner. They have children of marriageable age and are residing in their respective matrimonial homes peacefully. Sarabjit Handa aged 72 years (respondent No.5), who lives in Patiala, had no occasion to go to Delhi so as to cause harassment to the petitioner for bringing dowry or to misappropriate dowry articles. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional court viz. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, discharged respondents No.2 to 5, aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 7 It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that because the FIR makes specific allegations, Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 4 respondents No.2 to 5 were required to be charged. The impugned order ordering discharge of respondents No.2 to 5 is illegal. It is not a trial and evidence cannot be appreciated. It would only be during trial that evidence would be taken and the trial court would formulate an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of respondents No.2 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2018(1), Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 410 and Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 640. 8 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9 In Ramesh Singh's case (supra), it has been held that stage of framing of charge is initial stage of trial. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged nor weight is to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. 10 In Rajbir Singh's case (supra), it has been held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether trial is sure to end in his conviction. 11 In the case of Sanghi Brothers (supra) also, it has been held that if prima facie case is made out, the charge be framed. It has further been held that if there is a strong suspicion about commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the court to frame a charge. At Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 5 this stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. 12 Once charge is framed, a person is involved in a protracted trial before a trial court. Facing trial, surely, is traumatic not only for the accused, but also for his entire family. Framing of charge has consequences of serious nature for the accused. 13 Language of Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, itself makes it evident that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. 14 In Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 45, the following has been held in paras 30 and 33:- “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.” “33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 6 uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. ...........” 15 Having gone through the impugned order, I find that husband of the petitioner and her father-in-law have been asked to stand trial as prima facie case against them has been established by the prosecution, on the basis of material placed before the trial court. 16 As regards, respondents No.2 to 5, the revisional court has found that they appear to have been falsely implicated for the reason that the two sisters-in-law of the petitioner were married way back in the year 1984 and they have been residing in their respective matrimonial homes. The said persons have children of marriageable age. The petitioner did not make any complaint against the said persons in complaint dated 31.3.2008. There is a vague allegation against Savita Sood, only to the effect that she will teach a lesson to the petitioner for filing a criminal complaint against her. She gave Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 7 fist blows and was also demanding ` 10 lacs. 17 In regard to respondent No. 5, it has been said that he lives in Patiala and was only a mediator in the marriage of Sudhakar Bassi and the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it could be reasonably concluded that he would not go to New Delhi to make demand for dowry from the petitioner and harass her. 18 It has also been noticed by the lower revisional court that from 1998 till May, 2006, no complaint was made. It indicates that no such demand for dowry was made and no harassment was caused to the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner remained posted at various places out of New Delhi. It has been concluded that while the petitioner lived with her husband alone at his different places of postings, there was no problem in the family. It was only after the husband of the petitioner came to New Delhi to take care of his old and ailing father that the petitioner left for her parental home and raised issues, as noticed above. 19 In the case in hand, reasons have been recorded by the revisional court holding that respondents No.2 to 5 be discharged. I have considered the reasons in the context of facts and circumstances of the case. It is the admitted case that no issues arose after marriage in the year 1998, till May, 2006. It is only when the petitioner had to go to New Delhi to live, while her husband was to serve his old and ailing father, mother of the husband having died, that the first grievance was made by the petitioner. It is further the admitted case that sisters-in- Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 8 law of the petitioner were married in the year 1984 viz. 14 years before the marriage of the petitioner. The sisters-in-law have children of marriageable age. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that they had no occasion to demand dowry or harass the petitioner so as to demand dowry. 20 The allegations are not substantiated by any material that could prima facie be construed as sufficient ground for proceeding against respondents No.2 to 5. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court also, on consideration of record, respondents No.2 to 5 were required to be discharged. 21 In the case in hand, circumstances make it evident that respondents No.2 to 5 have been implicated only because they happen to be relatives of the husband of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), has taken note of such circumstances, and this Court takes a cue from the same. The circumstances noted above show that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against them. Not only the facts but also the circumstances are to be considered before deciding whether a person is to be discharged or not. The said exercise has been carried out by the lower revisional court in the right perspective. The reasons for which the respondents have been discharged are not perverse, capricious or unreasonable. 22 The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to which reference has been made above, do not Criminal Revision No.1481 of 2011 (O&M) 9 support the case of the petitioner, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noticed above. Making allegations merely would not entitle a complainant to get all the accused named in the FIR charged, to stand trial. The Court is duty bound to consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused, or not. The said exercise has been carried out by the Additional Sessions Judge. I find the reasons to be legally tenable. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court would not re-appreciate the material so as to see whether prima facie case, so as to call for framing of charge against the respondents, is made out or not. 23 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 14, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?