Sohan Lal Mahendra vs Smt. Badam and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner, who happens to be a complainant in a criminal case, has challenged the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Sati) Rajasthan, Jaipur and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has discharged the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 for offence u/s 498-A I.P.C.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had sent a written complaint to Director General of Police, Rajasthan wherein he had claimed that his daughter, Rekha, is married to Mr. Ashok Kumar Sanwaria, who happens to be a police officer. He had further claimed that as Ashok Kumar wants to marry another lady, therefore, he and his family members treated his daughter cruelly. He had requested the Director General of Police to instruct Ashok Kumar not to treat his daughter cruelly and restrain him from marriage with another lady. The Director General of Police sent this complaint to the Police Station Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur. The same was registered as a former FIR, FIR No. 90/2001, on 16.10.2001 for offence under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and investigation commenced, during the course of the investigation, Ashok Kumar was arrested and the dowry articles were recovered from him. Since the respondents No. 1 to 5 were apprehensive of being arrested, they moved an anticipatory bail before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. However, the same was rejected by the learned District Judge. Subsequently, they filed anticipatory bail before this Court. During the pendency of the bail application, Ashok Kumar agreed to take his wife back to the matrimonial home. Since the complainant''s daughter was taken back to her matrimonial home, the indulgence of bail was granted by this Court to the respondent Nos.l to 5. However, after the grant of bail, again the family started cruelty with Rekha. They also pressurized her to withdraw the criminal case pending against them. Whenever, she refused, she was assaulted and tortured by her in-law''s family. The complainant, therefore, brought his daughter back to his house. Eventually, the charge-sheet was filed in the FIR against the accused Ashok Kumar, Ghashi Ram and Manbhari Devi, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Smt. Rekha respectively and against the respondent Nos.l to 5. Since the charge-sheet included the letters written by Smt. Rekha to her parents wherein she had complaint about the cruelty, and the Rojnamcha Report, vide Order dated 21.1.2003, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law as well as against all the accused persons. Since the accused persons were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision petition before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said petition was subsequently transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Sati) Rajasthan, Jaipur and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Vide order dated 17.12.2003 the learned Judge upheld the charges against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, but he discharged the respondent No. l to 5. Hence, this miscellaneous petition before this Court.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ravi Yadav, a bare perusal of the statement of Smt. Rekha and her family members clearly show the existence of a strong case against the respondents No. l to 5. According to him, the respondents No. 1 to 5 are Smt. Rekha''s sister-in-law, who were divorced and hence, were living in their paternal home. It is only subsequently they were re-married. According to the learned counsel, there is an allegation that in-law''s family of Smt. Rekha was demanding Rs. 50,000/ -, that they scolded Smt. Rekha for insufficient dowry and they had pressurized her to go for abortion, when she wanted to have a child. According to the learned counsel, at the time of framing of charges, the court is not permitted to meticulously examine the evidence. The Court is only entailed to see whether a strong prima facie case is made out against the accused persons or not? After examining the record available before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate had rightly framed the charges against the respondents No. 1 to 5. But the learned Judge has meticulously shifted the evidence and has erroneously discharged the respondents.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Anoop Dhand, has vehemently argued that even according to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it has become fashionable for the people to rope in all the relations of in-laws. Therefore, the learned District Judge was justified in examining the evidence available on record. He has relied on the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, in order to support his contention.

We have heard both the learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the impugned order and have also gone through the record of the case.

The menace of cruelty towards women is increasing by leaps and bounds. The domestic violence committed towards women has sky-rocketed to the point that there is a public demand for enactment of law against domestic violence. In the age of gender justice, the judiciary cannot be apathetic to need of the women to be protected in the matrimonial home. Dowry is a social evil, which has permeated into the urban and rural areas, to reach every class of this country. Since greed of men knows no bound, the cruelty meted out to women for insufficient dowry is an everyday occurrence. Hence, the need for the judiciary to protect hapless women from the perpetrators within the family.

A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that there are allegations against the respondents No. 1 to 5. These allegations have been made by Smt. Rekha, the victim in the case. Her statement has further been corroborated by the statement of her family members including the complainant himself, Rekha''s father. At the time of framing of the charges, the court cannot be concerned with the issue whether a conviction would be recorded by the trial Court or not? At the time of framing of the charges, the existence of a strong prima facie case is sufficient for framing of the charges. The Court is limited to seeing whether the ingredients of the offence is made out or not? It is equally well settled that at the time of framing of the charge, a meticulously examination of the evidence is not required. Hence, the learned District Judge has over- stepped his jurisdiction when he has minutely examined the record in order to discharge the respondents No. 1 to 5. In the result, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the Order dated 17.12.2003 and uphold the Order dated 21.1.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate.