Sir I have been moving slowly and Infac I have cross examined soem of the witnesses..I am posting the judgment where the ld Judge has wrongly assumed that marraige took place at girl native place( actually it was held in New Delhi which is salos mentioned in FIR) and MLR filed by girl 2 days clearly showed that there was no vsisble injury..But ld Judge consider that there is injury
"Present: xxxx, counsel for revisionist,
Public Prosecutor for State assisted by
, counsel for complainant.
JUDGMENT:
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
xxxxxxpassed by the court of, learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, xxxxin case No.xxxxxxx titled as State Versus xxxxxxand others, bearing
vide which the accused have been chargesheeted
for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A,406,323 and
506 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on a
complaint was made by levelling allegations of demand of
dowry, misappropriation
of the dowry articles and harassment in
connection with dowry to his daughter wherein he
alleged that his daughter was married to of
New Delhi on .2005 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies. He gave jewellery, cash, car and other household
articles in the marriage. It was alleged tha xxxxx is
subjecting his daughter to physical and mental cruelty. Accused
filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 against his daughter and in the said
petition he assured the court that he would not be abusive towards her
and he would remain peaceful. Thereafter, his daughter joined her
matrimonial home on 22.10.2010. However, accused again started
torturing her on flimsy grounds. He has withdrawn a sum of
Rs.
from
the accounts of his daughter
on different dates. She has two kids, one female of
and
other male of about months. , his father and brother tortured his daughter
mentally and physically and created pressure upon her by putting their
demands of movable and immovable properties such as her salary, cash
reserves, a new car and a residential flat. They turned his daughter out
of her matrimonial home with a threat not to return until the demands
are met. On these facts, a case under Sections 498A,406,506, 323 IPC
was registered in
3. On the basis of the material available on file, learned Trial
Court framed charges against the revisionists/accused under Sections
498A,406,323 and 506 IPC vide order dated.
4. Aggrieved against order dated , the revisionists have
come up in revision.
5. I have heard , counsel for revisionists,
Public Prosecutor for State assisted by counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record
carefully.
6. Counsel for the revisionists/accused argued that neither
FIR/complaint nor the chargesheet
reflects about the date, time and
place of occurrence. The accused is entitled to know with certainty and
accuracy, the exact nature of charge against him. The whole chargesheet
contains unspecific
and omnibus allegations.
7. It is further argued that as per Section 177 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. As per chargesheet
the alleged allegations have taken
place at New Delhi. No
part of the allegations has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of
. The revisionists/accused are residing in
. There are no allegations against revisionists/accused that reflect
any demand of dowry and harassment in that connection at
Therefore, the courts at New Delhi have got the jurisdiction to try the
revisionists/accused for the commission of alleged offence. In support
of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the authorities of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as Y.Abraham Ajith and
others Versus Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, Appeal
(Crl.) 904 of 2004 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4573/2003 decided
on 17.8.2004, Manish Ratan and others Versus State of MP and
another, Appeal (Crl.) 210 of 2000 decided on 1.11.2006 and
Bhura Ram and others Versus State of Rajasthan, Appeal(Criminal)
587 of 2008 decided on 2.4.2008. The police has fail to investigate
the place where the alleged allegations had taken place i.e. New Delhi.
The police even did not visit the alleged crime place once and
completed the investigation at and filed chargesheet.
Therefore, the investigation does not comply with the Criminal
Procedure Code. In support of his contention he has placed reliance
upon the authority of the Satvinder Kaur Versus State (Government
of NCT of Delhi), AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3596.
8. It is further argued that the chargesheet
was filed by the
respondent contains only vague allegations. It only reflects the
domestic bickering between petitioner no.1 and complainant's
daughter. There was no material on file to constitute the offence. The
court cannot act as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but
has to consider the basic infirmities etc. in the prosecution case. If the
case is based on the suspicion howsoever grave, the trial Judge is
empowered to discharge the accused. He is not to see whether the trial
will end in conviction or acquittal. In support of his contention he has
placed reliance upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India case titled as Sajjan Kumar Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation, JT 2010 (10) Supreme Court 413.
9. He further argued that the complainant has levelled funny
allegations that his daughter was provided with only one LPG cylinder
and she has to use kerosene oil when the cylinder gets empty. The
allegations levelled in the complaint cannot be construed to be in
connection with dowry. Even the complainant has not alleged that the
alleged harassment was in connection with dowry. The ordinary wear
and tear of the married life has been given a colour of demand of
dowry just to implicate the revisionists/accused in a false case. There is
no allegation of any constant intimidation over demand of dowry. In
support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the authority of
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Savitri Devi Versus
Ramesh Chand and others, 2003 Crl.L.J. 2759. The complainant has
himself has mentioned in his complaint that the articles were gifted in
marriage and there is no allegation that any dowry was ever demanded.
There is also no allegation of entrustment of any dowry to any of the
revisionists/accused. It has even not been alleged that the dowry
articles have been misappropriated.
Therefore, the offence under
Section 406 IPC is not made out.
10. So far as the allegation under Section 323 IPC, it has not been
indicated who has caused bodily pain and on what part of the body.
The time and place has also not been mentioned. The only allegation is
that his daughter was living stressful life with revisionist/accused no.1
due to certain maladjustment. There is no indication that the
complainant's daughter was threatened with injury.
11. Thus, in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances
and the law referred to above, no chargesheet
can be framed against
the revisionist/accused.
12. I find no merit in any of the contentions of learned counsel for
the revisionists/accused. The revisionist/ filed
a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
for quashing of the FIR in question before the Hon'ble High Court
. The said petition has been
dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 2013.
The Hon'ble High Court has observed in its order dated 2013
that “
A perusal of the FIR reveals that it has been
specifically stated therein that his father
and his brother tortured (daughter of the
complainant) mentally and physically and pressurized
her to fulfill their demands of movable and immovable
properties such as her salary, cash, new car and
residential flat. The said persons assaulted and
threatened to kill and also to the effect that she
would be thrown out of the matrimonial home.”
It has been further observed that “
In the present case, specific allegations have
been levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner was also
residing in the same house being the brother of the
husband of (daughter of the complainant).”
The revisionist/accused also preferred Special Leave
Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which has also been
dismissed vide order date
13. It is also pertinent to mention here that revisionists/accused
also filed a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
seeking transfer of this case to New Delhi. But the transfer application
was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated
The perusal of the complaint made by the complainant
and the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations of demand of
dowry, harassment in that connection and of threat in case the demand
is not fulfilled. The complainant in his complaint has specifically
mentioned that , his father and
his brother tortured his daughter mentally and
physically and created pressure upon her by putting their demands of
movable and immovable properties such as her salary, cash reserves, a
new car and a residential flat. The daughter of the complainant was
turned out of the matrimonial home on with a threat not to
return unless their demands are met, otherwise she will be killed. As
alleged in the complaint the daughter of the complainant was turned
out of the matrimonial home on and she was medicolegally
examined at . The complainant
has also placed on file copy of medicolegal
report dated
showing the injuries/pain toxxxxx daughter of complainant which
further primafacie proves that the complainant's daughter was
subjected to physically assaulted. The complainant has also placed on
file a list of articles which have not yet been recovered, which
primafacie proves that the articles given at the time of marriage have
been misappropriated
by the revisionists/accused.
14. So far as the territorial jurisdiction to try the case for the
alleged offences is concerned; marriage of the revisionist/accused no.1
and the complainant's daughter was solemnised at The dowry
articles were also entrusted to the which
the accused have now misappropriated.
Thus, the part of offence has
been committed in the territorial jurisdiction of. Therefore, the
courts at have got territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present case. Moreover, the transfer application of the revisionists/
accused has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide
order dated
15. I have gone through the authorities referred to by learned
counsel for the revisionists/accused in cases Y.Abraham Ajith and
others, Manish Ratan and others, Bhura Ram and others,
Satvinder Kaur, Sajjan Kumar and Savitri Devi cases (supra). There
is no dispute with regard to the law laid down in the said authorities,
but the same are of no help to the revisionists/accused.
16. In view of my above discussion, finding no merit in the revision
petition, the same stands dismissed. Trial court file along with a copy
of this judgment be sent back and revision file be consigned to records."
