Appeal In Dowry Harassment Matter.

Judgement

1)     detail_dc.aspx

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO  17 OF 2014

  IN THE MATTER OF:

  1. Dr Mitu Khurana                               …Revisionist

VERSUS

  1. Dr Archana Khurana           …Respondent

INDEX

Sno Details Page No
1. Memo of Parties 1
2. Application 2-38
3. Annexure A – Impugned order of the Trial Court dated 31/03/014 39-44
4. Annexure B- complaint dated 07/09/2007 to Crime Against Women Cell. 45-46
5. Annexure C- complaint dated 16/01/2008 to SHO Janakpuri 47
6. Annexure D- complaint dated 27.03.08 to SHO Vikaspuri 48
7. Annexure E- complaint dated 19/04/2008 to ACP, CAW cell. 49-53
8. Annexure F- Anticipatory bail orders dated 26/11/08 54-58
9. Annexure G- Final report submitted by the Investigating Officer 59-60
10. Annexure H- Brief facts of the case submitted by the IO 61-64

Delhi                                                                                 Revisionist Dated                                                  Through Counsel   IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO        OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF:

  1. Dr Mitu Khurana …Revisionist

VERSUS

  1. Dr Archana Khurana                                …Respondent

MEMO OF PARTIES

  1. Dr Mitu Khurana …Revisionist

Versus

  1. Dr Archana Khurana … Respondent

DELHI                                                                                                                                                              REVISIONIST

THROUGH

DATED                                                                                                                                                               COUNSEL

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO    17    OF 2014   IN THE MATTER OF:

  1. Dr Mitu Khurana                               …Revisionist

VERSUS

  1. Dr Archana Khurana                                …Respondent

REVISION U/S 397 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST ORDER DATED 31-03-2014 PASSED IN FIR NO 76/08, P.S NANAKPURA, TITLED “STATE VS KAMAL KHURANA & ETC” IN WHICH COURT OF MS CHARU GUPTA, M.M (MAHILA COURTS -02), SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI DISCHARGED THE ACCUSED DR ARCHANA KHURANA FROM THE OFFENCES U/S 498A/406/34 IPC. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

  1. That the revisionist is a law abiding citizen of India and mother of two minor daughters.
  2. That the present petition is being preferred by the revisionist above named under section 397 of Cr P C feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 31-03-2014 passed by the Ld Trial Court of Ms Charu Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court, Dwarka District Court, Dwarka, New Delhi in the FIR No 76/08, P.S Nanakpura, Titled State Vs. Kamal Khurana And Etc whereby the Ld Trial Court has passed an order discharging the accused Dr Archana Khurana from the offences U/s 498A/406/34 IPC The impugned order is annexed as “Annexure -A’’.
  3. The Revisionist,along with her twin minor daughters, is the victim of the cruelties done by the respondent and other co-accused. The Revisionist and the minor daughters are the living example of the shocking reality that how the vices of dowry, female feticide, female infanticide and gender bias are finely enmeshed in the fabric of all social strata of our country, be it the grass root level or that of literate, educated and professionally highly placed persons. This case is one such instance where even well qualified practicing doctors and professors are afflicted with gender bias, so much so, that not only did they torture, humiliate and unleash all unimaginable cruelty upon the Revisionist right from the time of marriage for bring with her insufficient dowry but also unlawfully made her undergo a gender determination test and tried to induce feticide after determining the gender of fetuses in the womb of Revisionist.
  4. That the Revisionist was married to real brother of the respondent namely Dr Kamal Khurana as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 28.11.2004 and started living at her matrimonial home along with her husband and other in-laws including respondent sister in law, namely Dr Archana Khurana.
  5. That parents and family of Revisionist had organized a lavish marriage and gifts including jewellary items were given to the groom as well as all the in-laws of the Revisionist, as per their expectations in various functions and spent a handsome amount in the solemnization of the marriage.
  6. That from third day of marriage the husband and mother-in-law started taunting the Revisionist for not bringing sufficient dowry. They specifically demanded Honda City car,Flat in Janakpuri, in addition to demand that the father of the revisionist lets the husband sit in his clinic. The respondent left for her further studies to Singapore on the third day of marriage.
  7. That the husband and other co-accused used to misbehave and shout at the Revisionist for no reason in public.
  8. That on 5th Feb 2005, the Revisionist came to know that she has conceived. In March 2005, after it transpired that the Revisionist was carrying twins, the Accused Husband Dr Kamal Khurana along with his family members started pestering the Revisionist to get the “sex-determination” test to find out the gender of both the fetuses.On the firm refusal of the Revisionist, a full-fledged conspiracy was hatched by the husband and his family.
  9. When the Revisionist was 16 weeks pregnant, in April 2005, she was fraudulently made to eat a cake laced with eggs. The Husband and in-laws were well aware of the fact that the Revisionist was/is allergic to eggs and direct or indirect consumption of eggs induces severe allergic manifestations. Being so conversant with this particular allergy of Revisionist, the husband and in-laws of Revisionist, in a planned manner, made her eat cake made with eggs, telling her that it’s eggless. As a result the revisionist developed severe abdominal pain and incessant bouts of vomiting. The husband and mother-in-law took the respondent to Jaipur Golden Hospital as he is well connected there being a doctor himself and despite the fact that the Revisionist requested to go to Ganga Ram Hospital as she was undergoing Ante Natal care there.
  10. That at Jaipur Golden Hospital, the Revisionist was deceitfully subjected to “FOETAL ULTRASOUND” by the radiologist Dr Nitin Seth, in connivance with the husband and in-laws  whereas the gynecologist had only asked for “kidney, Ureter and Bladder (K.U.B)” ultrasound. Needless to mention while doing this ghastly, illegal and evil act, the husband and his family paid no heed to the fact that they were subjecting the Revisionist and the unborn children to grave risk of life and health. Their only concern was to somehow ascertain the gender of the unborn children.
  11. That after the said ultrasound, the husband and other family members got to know that the Revisionist was mothering two female fetuses, they started pestering her for an abortion. On the blatant refusal of the Revisionist to do undergo an abortion, the husband and his family resorted to other illegal and cruel ways to induce an abortion.
  12. That, thenceforth the behavior of the husband and in-laws towards Revisionist changed from bad to worse. The Revisionist was forced to do all household works including the menial works like scrubbing floors etc.; she was not even given enough food to eat which was a necessity at that time and was deliberately put on the 2nd floor of the house, while the kitchen was on the 1st floor and in order to further harass the Revisionist the refrigerator was deliberately shifted to ground floor so that whenever the Revisionist needs water or any other article she had to come from second floor to ground floor. All this was done in order to impede a healthy full term pregnancy and in order to facilitate the abortion of the Revisionist as they knew that the Revisionist was already advised complete bed rest because of the threatened abortion.
  13. That due to the above said tortures and threat to her life and that of her unborn babies; the Revisionist had to shift to her parent’s house during her pregnancy in the month of May 2005.
  14. That the revisionist gave birth to her twin daughters’ pre maturely on 11th August 2005 by an emergency caesarian section, where she was taken by her parents following some complications.
  15. That Revisionist was shocked when the Husband and mother in law, along with the respondent, (who was visiting India at this time i.e. August 2005) expressed unhappiness on the birth of twin daughters and started demanding in the hospital itself that the revisionist gives away one of the daughters in adoption to the hospital authorities to any orphanage as they would not accept two daughters.
  16. That the revisionist thereafter shifted to her parent’s house with both daughters.The respondent meanwhile went back to Singapore in later half of August 2005 which can be from the passport of the Respondent, as at the time of the investigation, the IO has not investigated the same and the trial court has admitted oral submission of the respondent that she was not in India and she has not visited the hospital at the time of the birth of the twin daughters of the revisionist.
  17. That in the meanwhile, the respondent had returned to the matrimonial house of the revisionist in late 2005, after completing her higher studies and started residing in the matrimonial house of the revisionist.
  18. That thereafter though the tortures by the husband and other family members continued, but they are not being stated here for the sake of brevity. However it is necessary to mention that the Revisionist filed a complaint to SHO, Janakpuri, New Delhi in March 2006, highlighting all the tortures she faced at the hands of husband and mother in law. However at the time of making of this complaint to the SHO, no specific demand of dowry was made by the respondent. So no false allegation of dowry harassment has been leveled by the revisionist against the respondent in this complaint dated 12.03.06.
  19. That the revisionist was forced to file a complaint in the Crime against women Cell in June 2006, as the behavior of the husband and in-laws was still very bad towards the revisionist and her daughters and there was imminent danger to the life of the daughters as revisionist`s mother-in-law Mrs Indira Khurana had even tried to kill one of the twin daughters by throwing her down the staircase.
  20. That after the complaint made by Revisionist in June 2006 before the CAW Cell, the Husband and in-laws of Revisionist approached the family of the Revisionist for a settlement, to save the marriage and for the sake of the welfare of the two minor daughters; the revisionist gave consent for the settlement. Thereafter an agreement in writing was prepared between the revisionist and the brother of the respondent, which was signed on 16/06/2006, in presence of witnesses from both families. The Husband and in-laws had assured full security, safety and no harassment to the Revisionist and the minor daughters in the agreement; thus the revisionist did not press for action in CAW Cell but opted for counseling to save her marriage. When the complaint of the revisionist was referred to the counselor namely Dr Rajat Mitra in Nanakpura, Crime against Women Cell and the counselor suggested in front of the Husband that the revisionist should visit her matrimonial house twice in a week. Thereafter the revisionist started going to her in-laws’ house twice a week as suggested by the counselors in CAW cell.
  21. That when the revisionist started visiting to her matrimonial house, the marriage of the respondent/accused got finalized in January 2007. Thereafter the parents of the respondent requested the Revisionist to withdraw her complaints from CAW cell, as the marriage of the respondent has been fixed, and the complaints in CAW cell will result in troubles in the marriage of the respondent. After such request, the revisionist on humanitarian grounds, let her complaint file in CAW cell be temporarily closed, with instructions from the counselor to keep visiting the matrimonial home at least twice in a week.
  22. That upon the instructions of the counselor, after the temporary closing of the complaint, the revisionist continued visiting the matrimonial home. During such visits of Revisionist, the Respondent started demanding that the parents of the revisionist shall give a Honda City car to her in her marriage. The revisionist objected to such illegitimate and illegal demand of the respondent.
  23. That the respondent got married on 7th May 2007. However on third day of marriage, the Respondent has left her in-laws’ house and returned to the matrimonial home of Revisionist and started staying with her parents.
  24. That, thereafter, whenever the Revisionist went to her matrimonial home, Revisionist was abused by the respondent. Respondent blamed the revisionist for the breakdown of her three days long marriage as the parents of revisionist had not given the Honda city car to the respondent in her marriage.
  25. That the respondent instructed her parents not to give any food to the revisionist in the matrimonial home during her visit to the matrimonial home. As the only kitchen in the home was on the first floor of the matrimonial house where the Respondent was residing, the revisionist was not given anything to eat/drink in matrimonial home.
  26. That the revisionist was therefore forced to stop her visits to the matrimonial home because of the illegal demands and behavior of the respondent. The revisionist immediately informed the Crime Against women cell in a complaint dated 07/09/2007(Annexure B) in which the revisionist has specifically stated about the illegal demand and cruelties made by the respondent. In the complaint dated 07/09/07,  it is clearly mentioned that –

“My sister-.-law’s marriage was fixed on 9th May 2007. Before she asked for a car from my parents for herself. When we resisted this demand she started verbally abusing me since my (“my” has wrongly typed in place of “her”) engagement. She also has been sending me abusive emails and SMS, which I had been trying to ignore.  At the most even if I complaint to my husband, she would fight with me further and so would my mother in law. I thought after her marriage I`ll be able to settle my family life. But alas, she left her in-laws and husband and came back to home after a few days after marriage, the reason for which is not known to me. She does not go to her in laws. Now she has started asking me to do all the household work on the two nights I had started going there. She has banned food for me from the kitchen, and as there is no kitchen on my floor, and the only kitchen is near her bedroom, I am denied food even when I go there.” “I cannot go to my in-laws now, because I am not given any food there, and the only food I get there is abuses from my sister in law”.

  1. That after making the complaint by the revisionist, the respondent made a complaint to the Crime Against Women Cell, on the same grounds against her husband and in laws that they were torturing her for Honda City car.
  2. That after the complaint to the CAW cell, the respondent and her family members hacked the email account of the revisionist and sent some emails to the husband of the respondent, against whom revisionist had filed complaint in CAW cell and under domestic violence act. The respondent started defaming the revisionist, that the revisionist is having an affair with the Husband of the respondent. The Respondent even called up the Revisionist on her parents’ landline and was very abusive. A complaint regarding this was made to the SHO Janakpuri on 16/01/2008(Annexure C). In this complaint it is very clearly mentioned that

“Yesterday my sister in law Dr Archana Khatri called me on my landline number 011256l8687, call was made from her landline 27852727. She was very abusive and has accused me of having an affair with her husband Mr. Deepak Khatri, against whom she has filed a case under domestic violence act. They are putting all these allegations on me only to mentally torture me. My sister in law has left her in laws house within 3 days of her marriage, and has come back to my house. Now she has banned me entry into my in laws house.”

  1. That during the investigation on the complaint of the revisionist, on the advice of the SHO Janakpuri and the promise of the husband of the revisionist that he will try to improve himself, the revisionist shifted into a rented accommodation with her husband on 26th March 2008.
  2. That on the very first day when Revisionist went there with her husband, her husband asked for divorce. After much persuasion, he agreed to stay with the revisionist and give their marriage a chance for the sake of the minor daughters. The very next day after preparing dinner for her husband, the Revisionist went to her parent’s home on the advice of her husband as she was having high grade fever. Revisionist’s husband promised her to pick her up around 10 p.m. in the night, while coming back from his clinic. When the revisionist did not get any call from her husband, revisionist called up her husband on his mobile. At this time the respondent picked up the phone and started abusing the revisionist. Respondent again accused the revisionist of having affair with respondent`s husband. Respondent further threatened the revisionist that she will ruin the life of the revisionist’s and her two minor daughters.
  3. That the Respondent asked the revisionist to deposit the compensation as money in the bank account of the respondent.
  4. That thereafter on the very same night the revisionist`s husband came late in the night to take the keys of the rented accommodation. The revisionist sat in the car with her husband and insisted on going with him. However when they reached the rented accommodation, the revisionist’s husband did not allow her to enter the house. That thereafter the revisionist was forced to call up the PCR no. 100, and file a written complaint in the Vikaspuri Police station. The complaint to the SHO Vikaspuri dated 27.03.08 is annexed as Annexure D.
  5. That a complaint was filed with the ACP, Crime Against Women Cell on 19/04/2008 , wherein also it was mentioned that

“However my sister in law Dr Archana and mother in law were still making it difficult for me to return to my in laws or live peacefully with my daughters. My sister-in-law Archana‘s marriage got fixed up in Jan 07. In order that there is no hindrance to her marriage getting fixed, I had allowed my complaint file to be temporarily closed. Before her marriage, my sister in law had demanded that my parents give her a Honda city car in her marriage as a gift. I resisted this demand to which my father in law asked me “what is your father doing with three cars? Why can’t He give one nice luxury car to us’?” She got married in May 07 after which I expected I could restart my family life. However she left her in-laws’ house on 3rd day of marriage and has come back to her parent’s house where she is staying up until now. Now she is blaming me of breaking her marriage because we did not meet her demand for Honda City car. She started abusing me whenever I tried to go to my in-laws house and had been sending me abusive emails. She has told her parents to stop giving me food when I come home. She has been openly saying that she hates my innocent daughters and me. So again, I started staying in my parent`s house.” “On 14/01/08 my sister in law Dr Archana Khatri called me on my landline number 011 25618687, call was made from her landline 27852727. She was very abusive and has accused me of having an affair with her husband Mr. Deepak Khatri against whom she has tiled a case under domestic violence act. They are putting all these allegations on me only to mentally torture me. My sister in law has left her in laws house within 3 days of her marriage and has come back to my house. Non she has banned me entry into my in laws house. My husband and in laws are putting baseless allegations on me in order to mentally- torture me.” The complaint dated 19/04/2008 is annexed as Annexure E

  1. That because of the illegal demand/behavior and interference of the respondent, the matrimonial life of the respondent could not settle, and an FIR bearing no 76/08 has been registered against the respondent along with other accused persons in P.S. Nanakpura , but the FIR has been registered only on the complaint made by the revisionist on 09 June 06 . The FIR does not mention the facts disclosed in the later complaints regarding the events during the visits of the respondent to the matrimonial home on the advice of the police counselor on the complaint dated 09/06/06.
  2. That after registration of the FIR , when the respondent applied  for anticipatory bail , it was observed by the court of Ms Mamta Tayal, learned ASJ, Dwarka court  that

“She also talks of demand of one Honda City car by her sister in law in her own marriage” And at the time of granting the anticipatory bail, by the said court, the court has specifically put a condition that the respondent shall not leave the country without the permission of the court. After putting such condition the court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent.

  1. That after the completion of the investigation, the IO filed the charge sheet before the trial court and kept the name of respondent in column no 12 in place of column no 11.
  2. That after filling the charge sheet before the trial court, the court has gone through the entire file and found that in the Para no 7 of the Final report submitted by the Investigating Officer (IO) mentions that

“Due to the abusive behavior of her Nanand she stopped even giving food to her matrimonial home so she started living with her parents and same times visited her husband alone. She repeatedly tried to make peace with her in-laws but failed. The Final report submitted by the Investigating Officer is annexed as Annexure G

  1. Even in the brief facts of the case submitted by the IO in the court it is clearly mentioned (Annexure H)

शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत, ब्यान व् अन्य गवाहों के ब्यान, पूर्व पुलिस शिकायतों से अभियुक्त पति कमल खुराना, सास इंदिरा खुराना व् ननद अर्चना खुराना के खिलाफ दहेज़ की मांग के लिए शारीरिक व् मानसिक रूप से प्रताडना देने के आरोप की पुष्टि होती है.

  1. That the trial court has read the complaints made by the revisionist time to time to the concerned authorities and agencies regarding the atrocities, cruelties and the illegal demands, which are a part of the chargesheet and the trial court found that the cognizance should be taken against the respondent as there was/is sufficient material on record against the respondent. After going through the entire chargesheet the court has taken cognizance and passed the summoning order against the respondent on 21/09/2010.
  2. That Revisionist had, in all her complaints spread over the period of 2006 to 2008, specified the cruelties she was dealt with at the hands of Revisionist by way of verbal abuse and inhumane tortures such as keeping the Revisionist bereft of food and water, publicly humiliating the Revisionist and by her overt acts not letting the Revisionist settle in her matrimonial home. Apart from these, there is a specific allegations made by Revisionist to the tune of the actual dowry demand made by Respondent from Revisionist at the time of her own marriage which have also been taken on record by Ld. ASJ while deliberating over bail application.
  3. That after issuing the summon to the respondent, the respondent appeared before the trial court and applied for the regular bail, as the respondent produced the anticipatory bail orders dated 26/11/08 before the trial court. The trial court considered the regular bail of the respondent on the basis of the orders of the ASJ and accepted the regular bail of the respondent on the same grounds.
  4. That after grant of the regular bail by the trial court the respondent was very irregular and did not appear regularly before the trial court. Moreover respondent left the country without informing the court violating the conditions set by the Hon`ble ASJ court while granting the bail, which shows that the respondent is a influential person and she does not have any value of the law in her eyes.
  5. That despite the Revisionist having made clear and specific allegations against the Respondent, the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Charu Gupta, MM, Mahila Courts, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, recorded in her findings in the Order on charge dated 31-03-2014 that there were no “allegation of cruelty or violence or even demand of dowry by complainant against accused Archana Khurana. Also the fact that as per the investigation carried out by the IO accused Archana is alleged to have been in Singapore for completion of her studies since 11.09.2004 and returned to India only on 26.11.2004 to attend marriage of complainant and accused Kamal Khurana while leaving for Singapore again on 03.12.2004 and finally returning to India on 25.12.2005 i.e. 21.08.2005 to make any such remarks as alleged by the complainant against the accused Archana Khurana cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498A IPC without their being any further allegation against her. As such, accused Archana Khurana stands discharge for offence U/s 498A IPC.”
  6. That, at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court discharged the respondent, which is surprising as the same trial court had taken cognizance of offence against Respondent/accused as at the time of taking of cognizance, the trial court found sufficient material to summon the respondent and the Respondent never challenged the summoning order dated 21/09/2010 passed by the trial court.
  7. That at the time of arguing on the point of charge the respondent never produced any document/evidence before the trial court which was/is not a part of the chargesheet to prove that the respondent has not committed any atrocities/cruelties upon the revisionist and respondent never put any illegal demand from the revisionist.
  8. That the law is very clear on the point of charge that the trial court should not to go into the meticulous examination of the facts of the case nor can it go into the probative value of the statement of witnesses and the same has been stated by the Hon`ble supreme court in the Landmark judgment of Omkar Nath Mishra & Ors. V. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2008(1) JCC 65]
  9. While it is absolutely clear that the Ld. Trial Court had relied upon the first complaint of Revisionist dated 09/06/06, However the Ld. Trial Court had not taken into consideration that in her struggle for justice the Revisionist had been sometimes lured and sometimes forced to compromise and try to reconcile with her greedy, gender biased husband and in-laws several times. Once the revisionist had to actually put her complaint on hold just on the pretext of the prospective marriage alliance of Respondent (sardonically enough, a marriage that lasted only three days!)
  10. Thus, the progressive sequence of events that took place over the period of 5 years and factual matrix built in the subsequent complaints made by Revisionist were never referred to by the Ld. Trial court while discharging the Respondent of the offences u/s 498A IPC.
  11. Furthermore, the submissions made on behalf of Respondent regarding her period of her presence or absence in India were not substantiated ever nor at any point of time were the dates of departure and arrival of Respondent corroborated with the entries in the passport of the Respondent and No document for the effect has been produced by the respondent before the trial court with regard that the respondent was not in India when the revisionist gave birth to the two female child.

Moreover admittedly, the respondent was in India in 2007, when she demanded a Honda city car for her marriage from the revisionist and her parents. Admittedly she was in India when the brother of the respondent turned her out in March 2008, when the respondent demanded compensation to be deposited in her bank account.

  1. That in Sajjan Kumar vs. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the view that an accused can be discharged only if there is no possibility of the accused being found guilty specially in cases where the accused produces unimpeachable evidence in support of his defense. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat vs. State of UP AIR 2013 SC 52, the Apex court had laid down that even strong suspicion about existence of facts constituting offence is sufficient to refuse discharge. It was held:

“11.   ……..What needs to be considered is whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.

  1. In the instant case, however, the Ld. Trial Court never took into consideration the detailed allegations made over a period of time against the Respondent and the only allegation taken into consideration was also dismissed as “isolated incident” and “stray remark.” Moreover, the court should emphasize upon the necessity of judicious application of mind since lack of the same would result in miscarriage of justice and in the present case the trial court has not applied the judicial mind and passed the orders based on the oral submissions of the respondent.
  2. That in recent judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has also referred to and relied upon the deliberations of Apex Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat (supra) upon the scope and powers of the Court at the stage of charge and arrived at the finding that

The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused……

  1. Furthermore, the recent decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court also reflect sound judicial approach that although charge cannot be framed only on suspicion against accused, however at the stage of framing the charge the court is only to take a tentative view on the basis of material on record. If the Court finds that the accused might have committed the offence, it would only be justified in framing of charges against the accused [Ajit Singh vs. CBI 2013 (3) JCC 1909; Rakesh Bhatnagar vs. CBI 2013 (3) JCC 1990; Mukesh & Anr. Vs. State 2013 (4) JCC 2425].
  2. That it is apparent from a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 31/03/2014 that the Ld. Trial Court had not taken into account the entire facts of the case in a comprehensive manner and relied largely upon the oral submissions of the respondent and the FIR lodged only on the basis of the complaint dated 09/06/06.
  3. There are errors in the impugned order which makes it bad in law and aggrieved with the same the present Revisionist prefers the instant Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court challenging the impugned order on the following grounds:-

GROUNDS

  1. Because the impugned order dated 31/03/2014 is bad in law and wrong on facts as the Revisionist had leveled concise, specific and exact allegations against the Respondent which were not considered by the trial court while passing of the impugned order.
  1. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the grounds on which the very same court had taken cognizance against the Respondent and passed summoning orders dated 21/09/2010. By discharging the Respondent/ accused at the stage of framing of charges, the Ld. Trial Court has contradicted its own fair sense of justice.
  1. Because the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the legal position regarding application of judicial mind as to passing of an order of discharge as the law of the land is very clear that although the court is not supposed to go into the probative value of any material placed before it, however even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
  1. Because the discretion applied in discharging the Respondent of offences u/s 498A IPC by Ld. Trial Court is whimsical, arbitrary and is based on no evidence. The Ld. Trial court not only failed to take the complaints made by the revisionist highlighting the subsequent events as they happened during the pendency of the complaint dated 09/06/06,  in entirety but also did never confirm whether the dates of departure and arrival as alleged by the Respondent were correct or not.
  1. Because the impugned order is contrary to the facts of the case and the Ld. Trial Court has not taken into consideration allegations made in the complaints by Revisionist which were extremely detailed and pointed, making palpable a prima facie case against the Respondent. Quite contrarily, the Trial Court chose to overlook the detailed and explicit allegations against the Respondent in order to discharge her of offences u/s 498A IPC whereas the Respondent had at every stage doled out cruel treatment towards Revisionist since the time of marriage and publicly humiliating the Revisionist for having borne two female children.
  2. Because Ld. Trial Court made light of the serious allegations of gender bias flouting the essence of the Constitution of India (equality is the fulcrum of which) and it has also chosen to blatantly ignore the allegations of specific demands of dowry made by Respondent to Revisionist (to get an expensive luxury car from parents of the Revisionist) at the time of the wedding of Respondent herself. Not only was such absurd and unlawful demand on part of Respondent never taken into consideration by the Ld. Trial Court but the order of discharge was also unsubstantiated by recent decisions of Apex Court which rules otherwise.
  3. Because the Ld. Trial Court has not commented upon or properly dealt with the allegations of cruelty made by Revisionist against Respondent. The law is settled by Apex Court to deal with cases at the point of order on charge and the courts are under an obligation to abide by the same. Thus the serious suspicion generated by the complaints of Revisionist being brushed aside by the Ld. Trial Court in such lackadaisical manner is grave abortion of justice. Ld. Trial Court failed to give any concrete reason for disbelieving the complaints against the Respondent and the only ground of Respondent’s absence from India for certain duration does not appear to be a reason sufficient to discharge the Respondent of the offences.
  1. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to take into consideration that the counsel for Revisionist had, in his submissions during order on charge, brought to the notice of the Ld. Trial Court the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat (supra). However the Ld. Trial Court failed to take the same into consideration and did not pass any observation for not considering the said judgment quoted by the revisionist during the argument. .
  1. Because the Ld. Trial Court had allowed itself to be misled by false representations made by the Respondent convincing the court that she had no role to play in the cruelties upon and dowry demand made from Revisionist on the pretext of her having left India for higher studies. Not even a single document was filed by Respondent to substantiate such averment. Moreover the Ld. Trial Court also did not probe into this issue any further to substantiate the dates in question by verifying with the passport of Respondent.
  1. Because the Ld. Trial Court has failed to give any concrete reason for disbelieving truth of the case prima facie made out against the Respondent which makes the impugned order non-reasoned.
  1. Because passing of the impugned order has prejudiced the Revisionist’s chances at a fair trial in her fight for justice against the abuses such as dowry demand and harassment suffered at the hands of Respondent in collusion with other accused persons. The Revisionist had made specific complaints towards specific dowry demands and harassment faced by her at the hands of Respondent and those complaints of the Revisionist are very much part of the chargesheet. The Trial Court has not considered and overlooked the complaints made by the revisionist . The trial court passed the impugned order date 31-03-2014 based on the FIR registered on the complaint of the Revisionist made by her in the year 2006.
  1. Because the ld trial court failed to consider that after making the complaint in the year in 2006 , during the pendency of the said complaint, the revisionist made many other complaints to the authorities about the subsequent acts, conducts , cruelties, atrocities and illegal demands by the respondent and other family members to the concerned authorities/agencies , which are a part of the chargesheet. The trial court considered only the FIR registered in 2008, on the basis of the complaint dated 2006 , without going into the events happened with the revisionist during the period from 2006-2008(i.e. the filling of complaint and registration of the F.I.R)
  1. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the summoning order of the Respondent  passed by the same court in a same complaint case on the same grounds while discharging the respondent.
  1. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the provisions of the criminal law requires strict interpretation and a person cannot be discharged on mere surmises or by traveling beyond the specific provisions of the law, when even strong suspicion is present founded on material, which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged.
  1. That the Revisionist has no other alternate remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court through present petition.
  1. That the Ld. Trial court has committed serious illegality by passing the order discharging the respondent and did not properly considered the fact on record itself.
  1. That this petition is made bonafide and in the interest of justice.
  1. That grave prejudice and irreparable loss would be caused to the revisionist if the relief prayed for is not granted.
  1. The petitioner has not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble High court or any other Court seeking similar relief.

PRAYER In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

  1. Set aside the impugned order dated 31-03-2014 passed by Ld. Court of Charu Gupta, MM Mahila court, Dwarka, Delhi in FIR no 76/08 under section 498A/406/34 IPC registered in P.S. Nanakpura, Delhi , while discharging the respondent/accused Dr Archana Khurana for offences under section 498A/406/34 IPC.
  2. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper interest he interest of justice.

Orders 25.08.2014 27.11.2014 08.12.2014

Advertisements

Author: savedaughters19

This is a coverage of my struggles to save my daughters.I am thank full to my parents not only for Not killing me ,but also helping me save my daughters... My dream- A big shelter house for women who want to give birth to their daughters and raise them up with dignity and self respect , but have to fight their own families to do so. Will have medical facilities and facilities for legal aid. will have training centers for vocational courses so that they can stand up on their own two feet and stop the dependency on their husbands for finances, A child care center run and managed by the inmates, A kitchen and a vegetable farm run and managed by the inmates. At present only a dream.... But with grace of God will become a reality. God will show the way and means to achieve the dream.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s