Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.@mdashWhen this revision petition came up for hearing for the first time, the petition insofar as Pran Nath Dhall is concerned, was dismissed. However, notice was issued insofar as the petitioner, namely, Poonam Dhall was concerned. Poonam Dhall is the wife of Pran Nath Dhall. This petition has been preferred on her behalf against the order on charge dated 13.04.2005 as well as the formal charge framed on 13.04.2005 itself against the present petitioner.
2. The charge framed against the present petitioner reads as under:
That about 12-13 years back from April, 2002, you abetted the commission of the offence of rape on Smt. Saroj by your co-accused Pran Nath Dhall and such offences were committed in consequence of your abetment and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 376 IPC read with 109 IPC and within my cognizance.
In the alternative
That about 12-13 years back from April, 2002, you abetted the commission of the offence of adultery by your husband, i.e, your co accused, Pran Nath Dhall with Smt. Saroj and such offence was committed in consequence of your abetment and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 497 IPC read with 109 IPC and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the above said offences.
3. The allegations and the prosecution case are set out in detail in the impugned order on charge. The relevant portion of which reads as under:
This complaint pertains to 25.04.2002. The complainant, Smt. Saroj Sharma, along with her family members was inducted as tenant in house No. C-150 Gali No. 1/3, Bhajanpura, Tanki Road, Delhi, under accused Pran Nath Dhall, 12-13 years prior to this incident. In between both the parties developed good relations being landlord and tenant. Pran Nath Dhall also entered into a partnership with Dinesh Chand Sharma, the husband of the complainant. During continuance of partnership business, accused Pran Nath had an evil eye on the complainant and committed rape with the complainant for a long time under the threat that she would be killed if she disclosed the fact of illicit relationship between the complainant and accused No. 1. Consequently, complainant remained silent for a long time without disclosing the illicit relationship to her husband. In the meantime, Pran Nath Dhall also took naked photographs of the complainant, while she was taking bath in her bathroom. Pran Nath also committed fraud by taking photographs of Smt. Poonam, his own wife, with Dinesh Chand Sharma, husband of the complainant by administering some intoxicants upon both of them. Thereafter, partnership was dissolved. Dinesh Chand Sharma also informed Pran Nath that he was going to vacate the house but accused No. 1 refused and did not give his consent. Accused No. 1 proposed to Dinesh Chand Sharma that he would continue having illicit relationship with the complainant and also suggested that he should continue illicit relations with Poonam. However, Dinesh Chand did not accept this proposal. Thereafter, complainant and her husband vacated the premises of the accused. However, accused No. 1 started visiting their new tenanted house and insisted the complainant to continue the illicit relations with him, otherwise, he would blackmail her by printing her naked photographs as well photos of her husband with Poonam on the posters. Complainant was left with no option but to continue the said illegal relationship with him. Accused No. 1 also stated that he would return the positives and negatives of the photos of the both the parties in case complainant and her husband keep obeying his order. Accused No. 1 continued to blackmail the complainant and her husband. In the year 1999, Pran Nath Dhall made a demand before the complainant and her husband that he would return the negatives and positives of the photos, in case complainant and her husband agree to give their daughter, who was grown up, to accused No. 1 for sexual intercourse. Both the complainant and her husband flatly refused to such a shameless proposal of accused No. 1. In the meantime, accused No. 1 got complainant''s husband falsely implicated in a case u/s 21 of the NDPS Act while working in cahoots with the police. Sh. I.C. Tiwari, the then Ld. ASJ, came to the conclusion that accused was implicated falsely in this case.
In the meantime, accused No. 1 developed intimacy with Vijay Kumar Sharma, brother of the complainant, and Vijay Kumar Sharma advised her sister to leave her husband and to continue having illicit relationship with the accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 is a rich man and he used to give money to Vijay Kumar Sharma. Vijay Kumar Sharma also joined hands with the accused. Case u/s 451/354/34 IPC bearing FIR No. 34/00 PS Shahdara was got registered against accused No. 1, Pran Nath Dhall and Vijay Kumar Sharma as well as their associates. The said case is pending in the Court. On 13.08.2001, accused No. 1 put demand for the daughter of the complainant for Constituting the illicit relations with that girl, otherwise, he threatened that he would kidnap her, would kill her and would kill whole of the family and distribute the photographs. Consequently, this report was lodged.
4. After referring to the aforesaid factual position and some other related material including the complaints and counter complaints between the accused on the other hand and the complainant and her husband on the other, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the following conclusion:
This is a very serious matter wherein allegations and counter allegations are made. This is unfortunate that in our country such like incidents have started to happen. All these questions cannot be decided in a jiffy. All these questions require full evidence and investigation. A prima facie case, for the offence u/s 376 IPC in the alternative u/s 497 IPC; 328; 506 IPC and 388 IPC is made out against accused No. 1 while prima facie a separate charge u/s 376 IPC read with 109 IPC in the alternative 497 read with 109 IPC is made out against accused No. 2.
5. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State have been heard. I have examined the order in detail and on such examination, I do not find any allegation against the present petitioner (Poonam Dhall), which could enable the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have framed a charge as he has done, as indicated above. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, while referring to an earlier decision in the case of
6. Considering the material on record placed by the prosecution itself and taking it at face value, it appears that the entire case against the present petitioner is entirely opposed to common sense. Insofar as I am concerned, it appears that the present petitioner is as much a victim of the alleged misdeeds of the co-accused Pran Nath Dhall as is the complainant. In the entire impugned order-on-charge there is not a whisper of any allegation against the present petitioner and, Therefore, I feel that there is no question of framing any charge against the present petitioner under the Sections for which the charges have been framed or any other.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition insofar as the petitioner Poonam Dhall is concerned, is allowed. The charge framed against her as well as the order on charge insofar as it relates to her, is set aside. She is discharged.
This revision petition is allowed accordingly.
