Mukta Gupta, J.@mdashBy these petitions the Petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order dated 27th January, 2010 directing framing of
charge and the order on charge u/s 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners.
2. At the outset it may be noted that the Petitioners Ajay Kumar and Kamlesh were Petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 109/2010. When
the petition came up for hearing on 12th April, 2010 the Learned Counsel stated that he was not pressing the petition qua these two Petitioners.
Despite that a fresh Criminal Revision Petitioner No. 183/2010 has been filed stating that the petition qua these Petitioners was withdrawn
inadvertently. No notice was issued in Criminal Revision Petition No. 183/2010, however it was tagged with connected matters for hearing.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present FIR and there is no evidence against
them warranting framing of the charge. The FIR has been registered on an omnibus statement of the mother of the deceased wherein vague and
general allegations have been leveled. The diary of the deceased has been recovered and as per the diary written by her there is no allegation of
demand of dowry against the Petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 Suman in Crl.Rev.P. 110/2010 is the married sister-in-law who was married even prior
to the marriage of the deceased with Ajay Kumar and has no connection with the matrimonial home. Further the Petitioner Jhabbar Singh aged
about 70 years is the uncle of the husband of the deceased and is living separately at a distance and has no connection with the matrimonial house.
No specific allegation as to who demanded dowry has been made. Further the falsity of the prosecution case is borne out from the fact that to
support their allegation that they had paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh after selling their ancestral house in the village, forged and fabricated sale-deed has
been prepared by the complainant and her family members. Reliance is placed on Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
2008 I AD (Crl.)(S.C.) 437 , Ramesh and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (I) JCC 172 ,
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi and Others Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, , Sunil Bansal and Ors. v. The State of Delhi 2007 IV AD
(Cr.) (DHC) 402, Raman Kumar and Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (109) DRJ 305.
4. Learned APP on the other hand contends that the allegations as set out in the FIR by the complainant and in the statements recorded u/s 161
Code of Criminal Procedure. clearly show that there was a constant demand of dowry. The deceased had stayed at her parental home for a
period of around 5-6 months as there was demand of dowry. Further the uncle Jhabbar Singh was the person instrumental in arranging the
marriage. The marriage took place at his instance. There are specific allegations against Jhabbar Singh for demand of dowry. The deceased was
sent on the assurance given by Jhabbar Singh and Suman that the complainant''s daughter will be kept safely and no harassment would be caused
to her. Despite the assurance given to the mother and the family members of the deceased, the deceased was harassed resulting in her committing
suicide. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the present Petitions deserve to be dismissed.
5. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that Sarita daughter of the complainant Krishna was married
to Ajay Kumar, Petitioner No. 1 in Crl.Rev.P. 183/2010 on 3rd February, 2005 as per Hindu rites. According to the complainant, the marriage of
complainant''s daughter was finalized through Jhabbar Singh, the uncle of Ajay Kumar. This finalization of marriage had taken place at the
residence of the in-laws of Suman, the sister-in-law. Around 6 lakhs were spent in the marriage, however the in-laws of the deceased i.e. Ajay
Kumar her husband, Kamlesh, the mother-in-law, Karan Singh Besoya the brother-in-law, Jhabbar Singh, the uncle and Suman the Sister-in-law,
harassed and used to beat the deceased for demand of money. On this the complainant gave a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to in-laws of the deceased.
However, still they were not satisfied. Thereafter they demanded that half share in the property of the complainant should be given to the deceased.
When Manoj Kumar the brother of the deceased spoke to the Petitioner Jhabbar Singh along with the elders of the family, he demanded Rs. 1
lakh more and assured that thereafter Sarita would be settled at her matrimonial home. On this the complainant sold her house and gave Rs. 1 lakh
to them. On receipt of the money Petitioners Jhabbar Singh and Suman assured and thus the deceased was sent to the matrimonial home. Despite
assurance the in-laws of the deceased harassed her on account of demand of dowry and finally she committed suicide on 4th January, 2007. The
fact that the in-laws were asking for a share in the property was told by Sarita to one Sanjeev her cousin, statement of Sanjeev Kumar was also
recorded in this regard.
6. A perusal of the FIR and statement of witnesses shows that there are clear allegations of demand of dowry against the Petitioners. The
Petitioners who are stated to be residing separately i.e. Jhabbar Singh and Suman have also demanded dowry and only after receiving the same
they assured that the deceased would not be harassed. However, despite payment of money and assurance the harassment continued.
7. A perusal of the contents of the diary though does not say that there was any harassment on account of demand of dowry, however the diary
clearly shows that despite the fact that the deceased did not cause any grievance the Petitioners harassed her. The deceased has expressed herself
in the diary and has stated that though she has never hurt anybody, however people left no stone unturned to harass her and trouble her. She has
gone to the extent of saying that perhaps her husband enjoys in grieving the other persons.
8. The contention that Rs. 1 lakh was paid to the Petitioners by selling the house is falsified by the fact that the alleged sale-deed produced by the
complainant allegedly shows that the sale transaction took place on 30th October, 2006 though the document is purchased subsequently thereafter
and in the original document filed the date of execution i.e. 30th October, 2006 has been destroyed cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The
Petitioners have already filed application u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure. before the Learned Trial Court for taking action against the
complainant for filing forged and fabricated documents before the Court. This issue will have to be gone into at the stage of trial. Suffice it is to note
that at this stage even after ignoring the sale deed the evidence on record raises strong suspicion of the offences charged having been committed by
the Petitioners. This is not a case of sifting of evidence but requires appreciation of evidence. At this stage it would not be appropriate for this
Court to assess the probative value of the evidence. All that has to be seen is whether there is a strong suspicion against the Petitioners for having
committed the offence. Further it is contended that the Petitioner Jhabbar Singh was in Haridwar from 19th November, 2006 to 21st November,
2006. This plea of alibi of the Petitioner Jhabbar can only be looked into at the stage of trial wherein it will be tested on adducing evidence in this
regard.
9. The reliance of the Petitioner on Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi (supra) is misconceived. Their Lordships in the said decision have clearly
laid down that evaluation of the material and the documents on record at the stage of framing of charge is only with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The shifting of the evidence at this stage is very
limited. In the garb of sifting of the evidence this Court cannot evaluate it and come to the conclusion that the version of the complainant and the
other family members that Rs. 1 lakh was paid after selling the ancestral property is false. In Dilawar Balu Kurane (supra) also their Lordships held
that where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court
would be justified in framing a charge. The Judge cannot merely act as a post-office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and documents produced before the Court, however should not make a roving
enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was concluding the trial.
10 The reliance on Ramesh and Ors.(supra) is also misconceived. Their Lordships in the said decision were dealing with the issue whether the
cognizance taken was barred by limitation and secondly whether the allegations in the FIR constitute the ingredients of the offence or not. In the
said case no act of abatement was alleged against the sister-in-law and so it was held that the imputations therein did not amount to harassment
with a view to coercing informant or her relation to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. The allegations in the said case
were that she was asked to wash W.C. and remarks such as ''even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave'' were passed. This was held
not amounting to harassment with a view to coerce informant or her relations to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.
Even in Onkar Nath Mishra (supra) their Lordships laid down that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not expected to go deep into the
probative value of the material on record.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and keeping in view the facts of the case, I find no merit in the present petitions. Prima facie strong
suspicion arises against the Petitioners which is sufficient at the stage of framing of charge. Petitions and applications are accordingly dismissed.