Full Text
Translation output
$-48 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 92/2013
VIKAS HARJAI
Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
CRL.REV.P. 92/2013
VIKAS HARJAI
Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
VERSUS
STATE GNCT OF DELHI
Respondent
ThroughiMr.Naveen Sharma APP for State
Respondent
ThroughiMr.Naveen Sharma APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
18.02.2013 By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated
18.12.2012 passed by the Court of Ld.MM thereby framing charges against the petitioner under Section 498A and 406 IPC.
Assailing the impugned orderthe petitionerpresent in person submits that Ld.Magistrate has failed to appreciate that none of the ingredients of offences as envisaged in Section 498A and 406 IPC have been made out against the petitioner and the petitioner will have to undergo the ordeal of agonising trial unnecessarily. Petitioner also submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant- wife are false and contradictory and therefore
2013:DHC:8505 the Ld.Trial Court ought not to have framed charges on such allegations as well as inadequate and inconsistent material on record. Petitioner also submits that there are variations in the allegations levelled by the complainant in her various complaints which raises adoubt over the veracity ofthe contents ofsuch complaint. Elaborating this submission, the petitioner submits that the earlier complaint lodged by her against Crime Against
Women Cell did not contain a whisper of dowry demand but in the fresh complaint filed against him in the Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura the complainant has raised altogether new series of facts which were never part of earher complaint.
I have heard petitioner in person. Although before advancing arguments the petitioner was advised to engage an Advocate for himself through the process ofLegal Aid Advisory Board but the petitioner insisted to argue the present petition himself.
After having perused the impugned order dated 18.12.2012, I fmd that specific reference has been made by the complainant against the petitioner raising a demand for money and for a car. There are also allegations against the petitioner for subjecting the complainant to physical assault. In the light ofthese allegations levelled by the complainant, this court do not fmd any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no material placed on record by the complainant for the court to take a prima facie view to frame charges against the petitioner under
Sections 498A/406 IPG. It is a settled legal position that at the time of framing ofcharges the court has to only see that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and not to conduct roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence. There is no merit m the present petition.
The same is therefore dismissed.
A
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J FEBRUARY 18,2013 g
18.02.2013 By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated
18.12.2012 passed by the Court of Ld.MM thereby framing charges against the petitioner under Section 498A and 406 IPC.
Assailing the impugned orderthe petitionerpresent in person submits that Ld.Magistrate has failed to appreciate that none of the ingredients of offences as envisaged in Section 498A and 406 IPC have been made out against the petitioner and the petitioner will have to undergo the ordeal of agonising trial unnecessarily. Petitioner also submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant- wife are false and contradictory and therefore
2013:DHC:8505 the Ld.Trial Court ought not to have framed charges on such allegations as well as inadequate and inconsistent material on record. Petitioner also submits that there are variations in the allegations levelled by the complainant in her various complaints which raises adoubt over the veracity ofthe contents ofsuch complaint. Elaborating this submission, the petitioner submits that the earlier complaint lodged by her against Crime Against
Women Cell did not contain a whisper of dowry demand but in the fresh complaint filed against him in the Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura the complainant has raised altogether new series of facts which were never part of earher complaint.
I have heard petitioner in person. Although before advancing arguments the petitioner was advised to engage an Advocate for himself through the process ofLegal Aid Advisory Board but the petitioner insisted to argue the present petition himself.
After having perused the impugned order dated 18.12.2012, I fmd that specific reference has been made by the complainant against the petitioner raising a demand for money and for a car. There are also allegations against the petitioner for subjecting the complainant to physical assault. In the light ofthese allegations levelled by the complainant, this court do not fmd any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner that there was no material placed on record by the complainant for the court to take a prima facie view to frame charges against the petitioner under
Sections 498A/406 IPG. It is a settled legal position that at the time of framing ofcharges the court has to only see that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and not to conduct roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence. There is no merit m the present petition.
The same is therefore dismissed.
A
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J FEBRUARY 18,2013 g
JUDGMENT