Full Text
Translation output
i $-24 & 26 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TRT .REV.P. 167/2013
VINOD KUMAR &ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
TRT .REV.P. 167/2013
VINOD KUMAR &ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE &ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State along with Mr. Avdesh, SI rRT.REV.P. 170/2013
VINOD KUMAR &ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State along with Mr. Avdesh, SI rRT.REV.P. 170/2013
VINOD KUMAR &ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE &ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State along withMr.Avdesh, SI, CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER o/o 15.03.2013 Crl.M.A. No.3323/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl. Rev. P. No.167/2013
Crl.M.A. No.3383/2013 fu/S 482 Cr.P.C.^ in Crl. Rev. P. No.170/2013
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
Crl. Rev. Petition No.167/2013 & ^ Crl Rev. Petition No.170/2013
2013:DHC:8506 I Crl. Rev. Petition No. 167/2013 &Crl.
M.A. No. 3322/2013(u/S 482
Cr.P.C.)
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 170/2013 &Crl.
M.A. No. 3382/2013(u/S 482
Cr.P.C.)
Impugned order of 12'^ December, 2012 calling upon petitioners to face trial for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 ofthe IPG is common.
Therefore, the above captioned two petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Impugned order records that prima facie there is sufficient material on record for framing charges under the aforesaid provisions against petitioners and order of 17^ April, 2012 ofthe trial court has been reversed.
Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the instant case is a counter blast to petitioners' divorce petition in which the complainant/ first-informant was served on 29^*^ July, 2009 and on the same very day, the instant FIR has been lodged. It is also contended on behalf of petitioners that there is no entrustment of any dowry articles to them and allegations levelled against petitioners are imaginary and so, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the trial court order qua petitioners ought tobe restored.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State draws attention of this Court to the complaint (Annexure-D) to point out that there are allegations ofentrustment of istridharn /jewellery items to the mother-in-law ofthe complainant at the instance ofpetitioner-husband and allegations of cruelty qua petitioners but on instructions from SI, Avdesh, the Investigating Officer of this case, candidly states that allegations to constitute the offence under Section 406 ofthe IPG are not
Crl. Rev. Petition No.167/2013 & 2 there against petitioner No.2- Pramod Kumar. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that there are any allegations constituting offence under Section 406 of the IPG against petitioner No.2- Pramod
Kumar.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order directing petitioner
No.2 - Pramod Kumar to face trial of offence under Section 406 of the
IPG is renderedunsustainable and to that extent only, the impugned order of 12*^ December, 2012 is quashed, whereas trial against petitioner No.2-
Pramod Kumar under Section 498A/34 ofthe IPG shall continue.
These petitions and pending applications are disposed of while modifying the impugned order of 12^** December, 2012 to the extent indicated above.
MARCH 15, 2013 rs Crl. Rev. Petition No.167/2013 &
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State along withMr.Avdesh, SI, CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER o/o 15.03.2013 Crl.M.A. No.3323/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl. Rev. P. No.167/2013
Crl.M.A. No.3383/2013 fu/S 482 Cr.P.C.^ in Crl. Rev. P. No.170/2013
Allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
Crl. Rev. Petition No.167/2013 & ^ Crl Rev. Petition No.170/2013
2013:DHC:8506 I Crl. Rev. Petition No. 167/2013 &Crl.
M.A. No. 3322/2013(u/S 482
Cr.P.C.)
Crl. Rev. Petition No. 170/2013 &Crl.
M.A. No. 3382/2013(u/S 482
Cr.P.C.)
Impugned order of 12'^ December, 2012 calling upon petitioners to face trial for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 ofthe IPG is common.
Therefore, the above captioned two petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Impugned order records that prima facie there is sufficient material on record for framing charges under the aforesaid provisions against petitioners and order of 17^ April, 2012 ofthe trial court has been reversed.
Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the instant case is a counter blast to petitioners' divorce petition in which the complainant/ first-informant was served on 29^*^ July, 2009 and on the same very day, the instant FIR has been lodged. It is also contended on behalf of petitioners that there is no entrustment of any dowry articles to them and allegations levelled against petitioners are imaginary and so, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the trial court order qua petitioners ought tobe restored.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State draws attention of this Court to the complaint (Annexure-D) to point out that there are allegations ofentrustment of istridharn /jewellery items to the mother-in-law ofthe complainant at the instance ofpetitioner-husband and allegations of cruelty qua petitioners but on instructions from SI, Avdesh, the Investigating Officer of this case, candidly states that allegations to constitute the offence under Section 406 ofthe IPG are not
Crl. Rev. Petition No.167/2013 & 2 there against petitioner No.2- Pramod Kumar. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that there are any allegations constituting offence under Section 406 of the IPG against petitioner No.2- Pramod
Kumar.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order directing petitioner
No.2 - Pramod Kumar to face trial of offence under Section 406 of the
IPG is renderedunsustainable and to that extent only, the impugned order of 12*^ December, 2012 is quashed, whereas trial against petitioner No.2-
Pramod Kumar under Section 498A/34 ofthe IPG shall continue.
These petitions and pending applications are disposed of while modifying the impugned order of 12^** December, 2012 to the extent indicated above.
MARCH 15, 2013 rs Crl. Rev. Petition No.167/2013 &
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 3
JUDGMENT