Anjumnissa vs State & Ors

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J

CRL.M.C. 1070/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 192/2017, Crl.M.A.4475-76/2017 (stay)

Reply filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is taken on record.

By these petitions, the petitioner impugns Order On Charge dated 03.11.2015, passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate discharging Mohd.

Asif (Brother-in-law) of the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A/406 IPC. Petitioner is further aggrieved by order dated

03.12.2016 of the Revisional Court discharging the other accused Mohd. Harun (Father-in-law), Begum Khusmida (Mother-in-law) and Mohd. Hasim

(Husband) of the offence punishable under Section 498-A/406 IPC.

The impugned Order On Charge dated 03.11.2015 discharges Mohd. Asif on the premise that nowhere it is stated that he had demanded dowry

specifically or he was entrusted with istreedhan articles.

The impugned Order dated 03.12.2016 of the Revisional Court discharges Mohd. Harun (Father-in-law), Begum Khusmida (Mother-in-law) and

Mohd. Hasim (Husband) on the premise that there are no specific allegations to show as to in what way the accused persons used to harass or

commit cruelty upon the petitioner and there was nothing on record to prima facie show that the petitioner had been coerced by the accused persons

to meet their unlawful demands of dowry.

The Revisional Court was of the view that the mere demand of dowry by itself is not cruelty. For this observation, reliance was placed on the

decision of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State & Anr.: 2008 II AD (Delhi) 586. Further, it has been held that there is no specific

allegation as to entrustment of istreedhan articles to the accused persons and in the absence of any specific allegations as to entrustment of istreedhan

articles, no prima facie case under Section 406 IPC was held to be made out. Accordingly, the above said accused were discharged.

At the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The

Court does not have to, at that stage, appreciate the probative value of the material or the evidence to conclude whether the evidence is sufficient or

not for convicting the accused.

In the present case, in the FIR, it is contended that the petitioner was married to Mohd. Hasim on 26.04.2009. It was agreed that the vidaai would

take place after one year. When the period of one year elapsed and the petitioner’s father approached the respondents for the purpose of viddai,

demand for money was made. It is contended that the accused demanded Rs.21 lakhs in cash and property worth approximately Rs.30 lakhs. It is

specifically averred that the demand was made on 23.03.2010 and, on 24.03.2010, the accused Harun (Father-in-law), Begum Khusmida (Mother-in-

law), Mohd. Hasim (Husband) and the accused Asif (Brother-in-law) specifically made a demand and stated that unless the demand was met, they

would not permit the Rukhsati/Vidaai and would get Mohd. Hasim married somewhere else.

In the statements of various witnesses inter alia, the wife and her father, recorded under section 161 CrPC, the allegations of the FIR have been

reiterated.

Section 161 statement of Mohd. Iqbal (father of the girl) specifically enumerates the number of articles including gold jewellery, silver articles,

clothes, motorcycle and cash alongwith other household gift items inter alia TV Fridge, Sofa, given to the accused persons. The statement specifically

names the accused persons.

The findings of the Trial Court that there are no allegations against Mohd. Asif are not substantiated in view of the allegations in the FIR as well

the statements recorded under 161 CrPC. Further, the findings of the Revisional Court that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was

coerced to meet their unlawful demand of dowry, is clearly not substantiated. The allegation that the accused refused to perform the Rukhsati/Vidaai

ceremony unless the demands of dowry were met would amount to harassment. A married woman if told that she would not be taken to her

matrimonial house unless she meets the demand of dowry would suffer cruelty, as required under Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC. Further,

section 161 Statement of Mohd. Iqbal specifically refers to certain articles comprising of gold jewellery, motorcycle, household items and cash being

given to the accused persons.

Prima facie, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC.

In view of the above, the impugned Order On Charge dated 03.11.2015 of the Trial Court and impugned Order dated 03.12.2016 of the Revisional

Court are not sustainable and are accordingly set aside.

List the matter before the Trial Court for framing of charge on 15.02.2018.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations of the complainant or the defence of the accused. The

accused are, accordingly, directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.02.2018.

Keeping in view the facts that the FIR was registered as far back as in the year 2010 and nearly 8 years have elapsed, the Trial Court is directed

to expedite the trial and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the same within a period of 9 months from today.

The Trial Court record be transmitted back to the Trial Court forthwith.

The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.