A Delhi court has ordered framing of dowry harassment and misappropriation of dowry articles charges and trial of the victim’s father-in-law.
The accused, Rajender Singh, had in a revision challenged a Metropolitan Magistrate court order framing the charges against him on the grounds that allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against him were general and vague.
The counsel for Mr. Singh submitted that the complainant had levelled sweeping allegations against the revisionist and his son (the main accused in the case) without disclosing the date on which the dowry articles were allegedly entrusted to them.
In the absence of entrustment, which is a necessary ingredient, the charge for the offence under IPC Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) was not made out, his counsel also submitted.
Court’s observation
However, Additional Sessions Judge Smita Garg rejected his arguments and said: “Upon testing the FIR, statements recorded under CrPC Section 161 and other material on record on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Superior Court, there can be no doubt that there exist the grounds to presume that the revisionist has committed the offences under Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC.”
“Some of the specific incidents narrated by the complainant are that after the birth of her son, the revisionist [her father-in-law] asked the complainant to arrange ₹5 lakh for the construction of a floor at her matrimonial house and that the revisionist also used to provoke his son to beat the complainant by saying that her parents would give cash only if she would be beaten and harassed,” Ms. Garg said.
As regards the offence of criminal breach of trust, the Judge said: “Qua the offence under IPC Section 406, it is pertinent to observe that the complainant has specifically alleged that after shifting to the house of the revisionist, her jewellery was kept by the revisionist and that he had refused to return the same when she visited the revisionist’s house with her mother.”
“In the light of above discussion, I find no infirmity in the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The revision petition is without merits and is, accordingly, dismissed,” Ms. Garg also said.
Case filed in 2014
Paschim Vihar police in west Delhi had in 2014 lodged a case against the victim’s father-in-law, her husband and sister-in-law based on a complaint filed by her.
The court had later discharged her sister-in-law and ordered framing of charges against the victim’s husband and father-in-law.
