IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

In re:- Crl. Revision Petition No. ______ of 2016

In the matter of:-

SMT. SUMITRA & OTHERS .....PETITIONER

Versus

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION

397 AND 401 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR SETTING
ASIDE/QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
CHARGE DATED 11.08.2016, PASSED BY THE LD.
TRIAL COURT OF MS. BIMLA KUMARI, A.S.J.,
SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI, IN CASE FIR NO.
123/2013, P.S. K.N. KATJU MARG, UNDER SECTION
376/511/498-A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC
THEREBY FRAMING CHARGES AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498-A/406 I.P.C.

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice

Of High Court of Delhi and

His companion Judges.

The petitioners named above most respectfully showeth:-

BRIEF FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE:-

1. That the petitioners are law abiding and peace

loving citizen of India and are permanent residents of

Delhi and residing their respective address given in the

Memo of Parties.

2. That the petitioners are the Jethanis (Sisters-in-law)

and Jeth (Brother-in-law) respectively of the complainant

namely Smt. Manju Mehra, wife of Shri Sanjay Kumar

Ranga. It is pertinent to mention here that admittedly the

Petitioner no 1 and petitioner no 4 are residing separately

far away from the complainant and other family members

since 2007 while FIR is registered in 2013.

3. That the marriage between complainant Smt. Manju

Mehra was solemnized with Sanjay Kumar on 22.04.2002

and the complainant and her husband resided in the

property bearing no D-1/97 Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi from

22.04.2002 to 11.04.2003 and again from Nov 2007 to

June 2012. The complainant lodged a false and frivolous

complaint dated 13.06.2012 in P.S. K.N. Katju Marg,

Delhi vide DD No. 12-B against her father-in-law (Sh.

Kharati Ram Ranga) and mother-in-law (Smt. Chameli

Devi) only.
4. That on 13.08.2012, Sh. Kharati Ram Ranga and

Smt. Chameli Devi sent a complaint against the

complainant and her husband as per the provisions of

Senior Citizen (Protection and Maintenance) Act and the

complainant and her husband was summoned for their

appearance before the Competent Authority for

21.09.2012. The complainant and her husband had

appeared before the Presiding Officer/Authority appointed

under the Senior Citizen (Protection and Maintenance)

Act, but failed to give any satisfactory reply to the

complaint of Sh. Kharati Ram Ranga.

5. That to take revenge from her father-in-law and his

other family members, the complainant lodged a

complaint dated 01.10.2012 against her father-in-law,

mother-in-law and brothers-in-law in Delhi State

commission for Women and simultaneously, the

complainant lodged complaint dated 22.10.2012 in CAW

Cell Outer District, Sector-3 Rohini Delhi, in which she

alleged that she was tortured and harassed by her in-

laws and she and her husband forcibly thrown out from

the matrimonial house and in the said complaints, there

were no allegations against them including the present

petitioners regarding the dowry demand or harassment in

pursuance of dowry demands. The true copy of the

Complaints dated 01.10.2012 and 22.10.2012, with its

True English Translation are annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE ‘P-1’ (Colly.).

6. That out of fear from the conduct of the complainant

and husband, her father in law namely Khairati Ram

Ranga and Smt Chameli Devi had debarred the

complainant and her husband Sanjay Kumar from their

immovable and movable property vide public notice

dated 12.01.2013 in Vir Arjun News paper. Thereafter,

complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.01.2013 seeking

residence right in the property belonging exclusively to

her father in law (accused) stating the same to be the

Matrimonial house. And thereafter, the complainant filed

a complaint under the provisions of Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her in-laws,

except her husband.

7. That on 19.02.2013, Delhi Commission for women

closed the complaint of the complainant by observing the

matter between the parties a purely family dispute and

related to the property and enquiry was closed with the

advice to the complainant to avail the appropriate civil

remedy against her father-in-law for the partition of the

property.

8. That the father-in-law of the complainant also made

a complaint dated 26.02.2013 to SHO P.S. K.N. Katju

Marg, Delhi against the threats extended by the

Complainant and her husband.

9. As the complainant’s motive could not be fulfilled in

the CAW cell then by suppressing the fact of pendency of

earlier complaint pending before CAW Cell lodged a fresh

complaint with P.S. Katju Marg, Delhi vide DD No. 93-B

dated 21.03.2013 by improving her allegations contained

in her previous complaints dated 01.10.2012 and

22.10.2012 filed before the Delhi State Commission for

Woman and C.A.W. Cell, Outer Distt. Respectively.

10. The father-in-law of the complainant again made

the complaint dated 26.03.2013 to Additional DCP

Pushpanjali Enclave against the SHO Yashpal Rawat. On

28.03.2013,The complainant and the father-in-law and

brothers-in-law (Jeth), except the petitioner no. 4

appeared before the CAW Cell, where, they were advised

to conciliate the dispute by compromising with each other

and the father-in-law Sh. Kharati Ram Ranga disclosed

that he is ready to compromise the dispute with the

complainant.

11. On 03.04.2016, on the basis of the complaint dated

21.03.2013, lodged by the complainant, a fresh FIR no

123/2013 dated 03.04.2013 under section

498A/376/354/511/34 in P.S. K.N. Katju Marg Outer

District complaint with altogether new and fresh

allegations against the entire in-laws family (except the

husband of the complainant), including the present

petitioners. The true copy of the FIR No. 123/2013, dated

03.04.2013, P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi with its true

English Translation is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE

‘P-2’ (Colly.).

12. That during the pendency of the conciliation

proceedings, the complainant informed the officials of the

CAW Cell that she has got registered a case FIR No.

123/2013 with P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, u.S.

354/498A/511/376/34 IPC against the petitioners and

their other family members. Thereafter, the petitioner no.

4 and other family members were granted anticipatory

bail and accused Sunil Kumar Ranga remained behind

bars for a period of two months appx. before being

released on bail on the basis of the Order passed by this

Hon’ble Court. However, the petitioner no. 1 to 3 were

not arrested in the above noted case and the police after

completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet

against the petitioners and other family members before

the Ld. Court of M.M., Delhi for commencing the trial

against the entire in-laws, including the petitioners for

the offence punishable under Section 376/511/506/498-

A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC. And the Ld. Court of M.M.,

Rohini, Delhi, committed the case to Sessions Court for

trial. The true copy of the Charge Sheet with its true

English Translation is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE

‘P-3’ (Colly.).

13. That at the time of framing of charge, the detailed

written submissions on behalf of petitioners and other co-

accused persons were submitted before the Ld. Trial

Court and after submissions of the written arguments,

the Counsel for the petitioners and the other co-accused

persons as well as Ld. APP for the State, also addressed

their respective oral arguments on the point of charge

before the Ld. Trial Court.

14. That after hearing the arguments, the Ld. Trial

Court in very arbitrary manner passed the impugned

Order dated 11.08.2016, thereby framing the charges

against the petitioners of this petition for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. The

petitioners did not plead their guilt and claimed trial.

15. That the impugned Order dated 11.08.2016, passed

by the Ld. Trial Court is illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary,

against the propositions of the settled law as well as

principles of natural justice, therefore, the same is liable

to be set-aside/quashed, with the gracious orders of this

Hon’ble Court on the following amongst grounds:-

GROUNDS:-

A. BECAUSE, the impugned order is based on

conjectures and surmises and have been passed in very

hasty manner and without following judicial principles

/precedents established by this Hon’ble court and Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India.

B. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that no prima facie case is made out against the

petitioners for their trial for the offences punishable

under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC.

C. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that there is neither specific nor general allegations in

the FIR as well as in charge sheet against the petitioners

with regard to the harassment in pursuance to the dowry

demands or torture and/or misappropriation of the dowry

articles. Moreover even, the name of the petitioner no. 1

is does not find mention even in the FIR and in the

charge sheet, but the police in mechanical manner,

implicated the petitioner no. 1 in the above noted case

and even, during the course of investigation, the police

did not find any accusation against the petitioners, but

the police in routine manner filed the charge sheet

against the petitioners. The Ld.

Trial Court also in mechanical manner and illegal manner

passed the impugned order, thereby framing the charges

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Section 498-A/406/34 IPC. As such, the impugned Order

is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-

aside/quashed.

D. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court while passing the

impugned Order, failed to appreciate that the

complainant leveled the allegations against the petitioner

no. 4 that on 11.04.2003, when, she preparing food, the

petitioner no. 4 came towards her and there was

exchange of abuse from both sides and the petitioner no.

1 said that I would prefer to go jail after killing her. In

this regard, it is submitted that this is a case of verbal

exchange of abuse and these allegations no offence for

demanding dowry or dowry related harassment to

extending threat of voluntary causing hurt is made out

against the petitioner no. 4 and even, the said allegations

are related to the year 2003 and the same is barred by

limitation under Section 468 of Cr. P.C. It is further

submitted that the Ld. Trial Court miserably failed to

appreciate that the complainant herself in her complaint

categorically stated that the petitioner no. 1 & 4 are living

separately from the other family members (co-accused

persons) since November, 2007 and they are not even in

talking terms with the other family members, therefore,

the framing of charges against the petitioner no. 1 & 4 for

the offences punishable under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC,

is illegal and against the criminal jurisprudence,

therefore, the impugned order is perverse being illegal,

as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

E. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that the complainant did not level any specific or general

allegations against the petitioner no. 2 & 3 for demand

of dowry or dowry related harassment or allegations of

misappropriation of the dowry articles and the entire

complaint of the complainant is devoid of essential

ingredients of any offence, in which the Ld. Trial Court

framed the charge against the petitioners, therefore, the

impugned order of framing charge is liable to be set

aside.

F. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that the complainant roped each and every family

members of her matrimonial house except her husband,

who is in collusion and connivance with the complainant,

to extract money and property from his parents under

the garb of the complaint of the complainant which is

apparent from the list of dates and events.

G. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that it is settled law that for framing of charge for

conducting the trial there should not only prima facie

case but also sufficient grounds and evidence for putting

them to trial, but in the instant case, there is neither

prima face case nor any sufficient grounds or evidence

against of the petitioners for putting them to trial.

H. BECAUSE, during the course of investigation, the

police investigated the complaints of the complainant,

lodged with the CAW Cell as well as Delhi Commission for

Woman, and the copies of the same were filed along

with the charge sheet along with the copy of the

complaint dated 21.03.2013, on the basis of which the

above case FIR has been registered and during the

course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners

pointed out on the

improvement/embellishments/contradictions in the said

complaints as well as the FIR as all are contradictory to

each other and in view of the Judgement of this Hon’ble

Court delivered in case of Sunil Bansal Vs. The State of

Delhi 2007 [2] JCC 1415, wherein, this Hon’ble Court

held and observed that:-

“……In these circumstances, on exercise of shifting of

materials and particularly keeping in mind the existence

of two contradictory statements, it cannot be said that a

grave suspicion exists about the commission of offence

under Section 304-B by the petitioners. It is well settled

that if two views at charge framing stage exists, based

upon the materials available, the view favouring the

accused is to be preferred. (Ref. Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs.

State of Maharashtra 2002 SCC (Crl.) 310.”.

I. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court miserable failed to

appreciate the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India, in plethora of cases. It is submitted that Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in case titled “Geeta Mehrotra Vs.

State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741, had held and observed

that:-

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents

of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no

allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji

Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which

have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference

of the names of the family members in a matrimonial

dispute without allegation of active involvement in the

matter would not justify taking cognizance against them

overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is

a tendency to involve the entire family members of the

household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a

matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the

wedding.”
Further, in para 25 of the same judgement, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held and observed that:-

“25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of

caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer

that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating

the complicity of the members of the family named in the

FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but

what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the

FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation

against the accused more so against the co-accused

specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering,

it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to

mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to

undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses

specific allegations which would persuade the court to

take cognizance of the offence alleged against the

relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not

found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of

the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid

down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR

did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court

would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing

the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts

are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of

quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes

whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an

offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the

FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by

involving the entire family of the accused at the instance

of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising

out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic

bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial

surrounding.”

The facts and circumstances of the above cited case is

similar with the instant case.

J. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that the allegations against the petitioners leveled by the

complainant if for the sake argument assumed to be

correct then also they does not qualify to be “cruelty”

under section 498A and this Hon’ble Court in case titled

Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State 2007 [4] JCC 3074,

held and observed that:

“.......it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty

that would attract section 498A IPC. Beating and

harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide

or to fulfill illegal demands.”

K. BECAUSE, the Ld. Trial Court has framed the

charges without perusing the records and in a mechanical

manner, and as such, the petitioners are entitled for

discharge.

L. That the petitioners craves leave of this Hon’ble

Court to urge extra other ground(s), which available to

them at the time of hearing of the present petition.

16. That the petitioners have not filed any similar

petition earlier before any court of law, including this

Hon’ble Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, till

date.

17. That the present petition is being filed within the

stipulated period of limitation.

PRAYER:-

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is,

therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:-

i. Allow the present revision petition of the petitioners,

thereby set-aside/quash the impugned Order dated

11.08.2016, passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Bimla

Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North District,

Rohini, Delhi, in case FIR No. 123/2013, P.S. K.S. Katju

Marg, Delhi, under Section 376/511/506/498-

A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC, thereby framed the charges

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Section 498A/406/34 IPC and pass orders for discharging

the petitioners; and

ii. Any other or further order (s), which this Hon’ble

Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case, may also be passed, in favour

of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

Delhi.
Dated:
Petitioner
Through

ADVOCATE
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

In re:- Crl. M.C. No. ________ of 2016

In

Crl. Revision Petition No. ______ of 2016

In the matter of:-

SMT. SUMITRA & OTHERS .....PETITIONERS

Versus

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR. P.C. FOR CALLING THE TRIAL COURT’S RECORD

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the petitioners have filed the accompanying

criminal revision petition under Section 397 and 401 read

with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. against the impugned Order

dated 11.08.2016, passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms.

Bimla Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North

District, Rohini, Delhi, in case FIR No. 123/2013, P.S.

K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi, under Section 376/511/506/498-

A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC, thereby framed the charges

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Section 498A/406/34 IPC, which is pending adjudication

before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the contents of the accompanying revision

petition may be read as part and parcel to this affidavit

as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of

brevity and to avoid repetition.

3. That the petitioners have got a good prima facie

case in their favour and there is every likelihood of their

succeed in the accompanying revision petition.

4. That for the proper adjudication of the

accompanying revision petition, it would be expedient

that the records of the trial court, pertaining to the above

noted case FIR be called.

PRAYER:-

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is,

therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court, may graciously be pleased to:-

i. Call for the records of the Trial Court, pertaining to

the FIR No. 123/2013, P.S. K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi, under

Section 376/511/506/498-A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC,

pending trial in the Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Bimla Kumari,

A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North District, Rohini,

Delhi, which now fixed for 28.11.2016 for perusal and

after perusing the same, allow the revision petition of the

petitioners and discharge the petitioners, in the interest

of justice.

Delhi.
Dated:
Petitioner

Through

ADVOCATE
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

In re:- Crl. M.C. No. ________ of 2016

In

Crl. Revision Petition No. ______ of 2016

In the matter of:-

SMT. SUMITRA & OTHERS .....PETITIONERS

Versus

THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR. P.C. FOR STAY OF THE TRIAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the petitioners have filed the accompanying

criminal revision petition under Section 397 and 401 read

with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. against the impugned Order

dated 11.08.2016, passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Ms.

Bimla Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North

District, Rohini, Delhi, in case FIR No. 123/2013, P.S.

K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi, under Section 376/511/506/498-

A/354/313/406/323/34 IPC, thereby framing the charges

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Section 498A/406/34 IPC, which is pending adjudication

before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the contents of the accompanying revision

petition may be read as part and parcel to this affidavit

as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of

brevity and to avoid repetition.

3. That the petitioners have got a good prima facie

case in their favour and there is every likelihood of their

success in the accompanying revision petition.

4. That disposal of the accompanying revision petition

may take a considerable time, therefore, the proceedings

before the Ld. Trial Court be stayed, till the final disposal

of the accompanying revision petition.

5. That the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss

and injury if the trial against them is not stayed which

cannot be compensated in terms of money.

6. That balance of convenience is in the favour of the

petitioners and against the respondent.

PRAYER:-

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is,

therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court, may graciously be pleased to:-

i. Stay the proceedings of the Trial Court, pertaining

to the FIR No. 123/2013, P.S. K.S. Katju Marg, Delhi,

under Section 376/511/506/498-A/354/313/406/323/34

IPC, pending trial in the Ld. Trial Court of Ms. Bimla

Kumari, A.S.J., Special Fast Track Court, North District,

Rohini, Delhi, which now fixed for 28.11.2016, till the

final disposal of the accompanying revision petition, in

the interest of justice.

Delhi.
Dated:
Petitioner
Through

ADVOCATE