fir no.180/09 ps: chhawla - the judgment information...

45
FIR No.180/09 PS: Chhawla 18.04.2016 File taken up today since 13.04.2016 was a holiday. Present: Ld. APP for the State. All accused with Ld. Proxy counsel Sh. Satish Kumar. Issue summons to PW Babu Ram for 01.07.2016. ( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court SW/18.04.2016

Upload: hakien

Post on 18-Apr-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

FIR No.180/09PS: Chhawla

18.04.2016

File taken up today since 13.04.2016 was a holiday.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.All accused with Ld. Proxy counsel Sh. Satish Kumar.

Issue summons to PW Babu Ram for 01.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 208/15PS: DWK (S)

18.04.2016

File taken up today since 13.04.2016 was a holiday.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.None for accused.

Issue summons to accused Ram Swaroop for

29.06.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No. 166/02Suman Vs. Ram Swaroop

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. counsel for the complainant.Respondent alongwith Ld. counsel.

This is an application u/s 25 DV Act. for modification of

order dated 14.07.2010. It is stated that complainant expressed

herself to be unemployed and therefore a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per

month was fixed as interim maintenance for the complainant.

However, during her cross examination she admitted that she is

working as a coordinator in fortis hospital for a monthly salary of Rs.

12,000/- since 11.03.2013. Hence, the present application has filed

for modification of the said order and for refund of money paid w.e.f

11.03.2013.

Complainant has filed her reply stating that respondent is

earning handsomely and complainant find difficult to survive on

meager sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month.

Heard. Record perused.

On 14.07.2010, respondent had voluntarily offered sum

of Rs. 6,000/- per month for the maintenance of the complainant and

the same was accepted by the complainant.

Complainant admits that she got employed in March

2013 but the said fact was not brought on record by her. This shows

that complainant had tried to conceal material facts from the court.

Moreover, the guiding light for fixing interim maintenance is Section

125 Cr.P.C which talks about woman who are incapable of

maintaining themselves. She accepted Rs. 6,000/- per month as

sufficient for her interim maintenance and now that she earns Rs.

13,000/- per month (as per her reply), it cannot be said that she is

incapable of maintaining herself.

Ld. family court has also allowed similar application

moved by respondent against the complainant.

-2-

In view of the above noted facts, the present application

is allowed. Complainant is not entitled to interim maintenance from

respondent w.e.f 11.03.2013. However, no order is passed qua

refund of amount and such adjustments shall be made, if necessary,

at the final disposal of the case.

Relist for CE on 19.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No. 1093/1Nisha Vs Gaurav

18.04.2016

File taken up today since 16.04.2016 was a holiday.

Present: None for the complainant.Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

Some more time sought by respondent to file detailed

affidavit on the lines of Kusum Sharma. Be filed with advance copy

to the complainant atleast a week prior to the NDOH.

Relist for interim arguments on 07.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 147/12PS: Nanakpura

18.04.2016

File taken up today since 16.04.2016 was a holiday.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Accused Anoop and Meeta in person. Accused Nirmal Chopra and Ram Grover are absent.

An oral request for exemption from personal appearance

is made on behalf of accused Nirmal Chopra and Ram Grover by

co-accused Anoop. Allowed for today only.

Put up for arguments on charge on 25.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.14/11PS: Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Accused Brij Bhan in person.

Certified copy of order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

dated 05.02.2016 in Crl. MC no. 4979/2015 titled Brij Bhan & Ors.

VS. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Teji)

vide which present FIR no. 14/11 u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC PS

Nanakpura and the consequent proceedings have been quashed

after settlement. Accused are acquitted u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.

Personal bond and surety bond of all accused stands discharged.

Original documents if any be released to the authorised

persons on proper receipt and endorsement, if any, be cancelled.

File be consigned to record room.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 167/12PS:Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Accused Tarandeep Singh and Kulwant Kaur with Ld. Proxy counsel Sh. Shoib.

Some more time is sought to file quashing petition. Last

opportunity granted.

Put up for F.P on 11.08.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.139/14PS:Chhawla

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Both accused alongwith Sh. J.D. Sharma, Ld. Counsel.MHC(M) Ct. Haiyat in person.

Summons to PW Vishal received back served. However,

a letter of request is received from Sonam Khatri requesting for

exemption for PW Vishal.

PW Sonam was not traceable in this case and therefore,

she was dropped from the list of witnesses on 21.12.2015. However,

it appears that either PW Sonam lives at the same address as that

of PW Vishal or is in touch with him.

Accordingly, fresh summons be sent to PW Vishal and

Sonam for 20.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 114/14PS:J.P. Kalan

18.04.2016

File taken up today since 13.04.2016 was a holiday.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Accused Gajraj in person.

Certified copy of order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

dated 25.02.2016 in W.P.(CRL) 173/2016 titled Gajraj & Ors. VS.

The State & Ors. (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sunita Gupta) vide which

present FIR no. 114/14 u/s 323/354B/452/34 IPC PS Jaffarpur

Kalan and the consequent proceedings have been quashed after

settlement, subject to payment of Rs. 30,000/- as cost to be

deposited by accused with Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation

Centre.

Today, accused has filed copy of receipt showing

deposit of cost of Rs. 30,000/- with Delhi High Court Mediation &

Conciliation Centre.

Accused are acquitted u/s 323/354B/452/34IPC.

Personal bond and surety bond of accused stands discharged.

Original documents if any be released to the authorised persons on

proper receipt and endorsement, if any, be cancelled.

File be consigned to record room.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No.1005/1Maya Vs Prakash

18.04.2016

Present: Complainant alongwith Ld. LAC Sh. Manish Kumar.Respondent no. 2 in person. Respondent no. 1 absent.

Complainant has filed copy of FIR no. 363/16 PS Dabri

which was registered against the respondents.

Repeated efforts have been made by this court to help

the parties arrive at a settlement. However, it is clear that the parties

do not follow the settlement arrived at.

Ex parte order against R-1 was set aside, subject to

payment of cost on 07.01.2016. However, neither cost paid nor reply

filed till date. Accordingly, he is again proceeded ex parte.

Put up for arguments on application u/s 23 on

19.05.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.172/14PS: J.P. Kalan

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Accused in person with Ld. Counsel Sh. Anirudh Yadav.

PW-1 Babita is present. She is examined, cross

examined and discharged.

Put up for PE (PW Sunil) on 13.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 106/13PS:Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.All accused alongwith Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ld. Counsel.Sh. Ujjawal Jain, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.

An application for adjournment on behalf of the main

counsel for accused is on the file. It is stated that the main counsel

for accused is out of station. Copy of air tickets also filed.

Ld. Counsel for accused requests that the matter may be

listed before 28.04.2016, when accused Jatin proposes to go out of

country. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that the main

counsel for complainant will be available in May, 2016.

Since, request for longer adjournment is made by the

complainant, accused may file exemption on the NDOH, which will

be considered by this court.

Put up for arguments on charge on 20.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 73/16PS: Kapashera

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Both accused from JC alongwith Mr. Raman Kumar, Ld. Counsel.

Record perused. There are sufficient grounds to take

cognizance for the offence u/s 354/34 IPC.

Since, both accused are present in the court, they accept

service.

Copy of chargesheet supplied to both the accused.

Accused are again apprised that they have been granted

bail on 28.03.2016.

Put up for SD/charge on 02.05.2016.

At this stage, accused submit that they had taken a shop

on rent and its key was seized alongwith the other jamatalashi

articles. As per the request, jamatalashi articles of both the accused

be released to Mr. Raman Kumar, Ld. Counsel.

Copy of the order be given dasti to accused.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 145/09PS: Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.All accused in person with Ld. Counsel.

PW-1 Pooja Verma is present. She is partly examined in

chief and her further examination in chief is deferred for want of

original documents.

PW/complainant has furnished medical documents as

directed vide order dated 12.08.2016.

Put up for PE on 20.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.26/11PS: Chhawla

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.Accused Jagjit @ Jagga alongwith Ld. Counsel.Accused Satender alongwith Ld. Counsel.

These are two applications for cancellation of

proceedings u/s 82-83 Cr.PC against accused Jagjit and Surender.

Heard. Record perused.

It is submitted that accused Jagjit had a wedding in the

family on 17.02.2016 and therefore, he was busy with the

arrangements on 11.02.2016. It is submitted that on the NDOH he

got late and process u/s 82-83 Cr.PC was issued.

On behalf of accused Satender it is submitted that he is

a driver and could not get leave on 11.02.2016. It is further stated

that on 07.04.2016 he was present but did not appear because he

got to know that NBW was issued against him.

Perusal of the record reveals that accused have been

seeking delaying the present matter since August, 2014 either on the

ground that they have settled the matter with the complainant or by

absenting themselves. On 28.09.2015 and on the NDOH i.e.

07.12.2015 both accused remained absent and consequently,

process u/s 82-83 Cr.PC was issued against them. However, on

07.12.2015 Satender appeared and on his oral request process

against him was cancelled. Still on the next dates of hearings i.e.

11.02.2016 and 07.04.2016, both accused remained absent.

It may be noted that process issued against 82-83 Cr.PC

against Jagjit remained uncancelled since 07.12.2015. Both the

accused have blatantly abused their liberty. As such, I am not

inclined to allow the present applications.

-2-

Both the accused are taken into custody.

Put up for PE (PW Babita) on 02.05.2016.

Copy of the order be given dasti to both the accused.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 210/15PS: J.P. Kalan

18.04.2016

Application taken up today as 17.04.2016 was holiday.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO absent.

Issue notice to IO ASI Sudesh to file final report on or

before 23.04.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No.1053/1/15Rajni Vs Jitender

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. Counsel for the applicant.Respondent Jitender in person.

This is an application for restoration of the case filed u/s

12 DV Act. Ld. Counsel for the applicant states that the respondent

did not make payment of Rs. 6,000/- after December, 2015.

Respondent has filed original receipt of deposition of

amount of Rs. 6,000/- in the account of applicant on 08.12.2015. He

states that applicant did not permit him to take school fee receipts as

agreed and has not been depositing amount of Rs. 500/- in the name

of daughters.

Applicant to appear in person on 11.05.2016 at

12.30 pm.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.87/15PS:Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO SI Radhey Shyam in person.

IO submits that parties are underway settlement talks

and are to appear before Mediation Centre on 28.04.2016. He

submits that as per the request of complainant, he requests for more

time to execute warrants as directed on 23.02.2016.

Search warrants for house search from house of her

sister in law Rupali House no. 107, Jarnail Enclave, Gurmukh Singh

Sarpanch Kothi Zirakpur, Punjab and H No 174-175, Jarnail

Enclave, Phase I, Zirakpur (Punjab) be issued to IO for search of

the house and seizure of the stridhan articles of complainant in the

presence of complainant and accused owner of house, keeping due

regard for safety and security of all the persons present at the spot

and to prepare inventory of all the articles seized during search after

identification by the complainant and to take photographs of all the

articles. The IO is directed to record the objections of accused

persons if they object to seizure of any of the articles and if they

claim their ownership on any of the articles. Copy of order be given

dasti to IO and IO is directed to serve the copy of order upon

respondent / accused before the house search.

Fix for report on 24.06.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No.492/1Anita Vs Robin

18.04.2016

Present: Complainant alongwith Mr. Vipin Poria, Ld. Counsel.Respondent (from JC) alongwith Ld. Counsel.

Both the parties want to settle the case in Mediation. At

joint request matter is referred to the Mediation Centre, Dwarka

Courts, Delhi. Referral form has been duly filled in.

Ahlmad is directed to place the mediation form with copy

of this order complete in all respect before the Mediation Centre,

Delhi on or before 03.05.2016 at 2.00 pm. Parties are directed to

appear before Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi on date

fixed.

Put up for further proceedings before this court on

17.05.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

Ex No. 40/14Anita Vs Robin

18.04.2016

Present: DH alongwith Mr. Vipin Poria, Ld. Counsel.JD (from JC) alongwith Ld. Counsel.

No payment offered today. JD is remanded to custody till

17.05.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

Ex No. Anita Vs Robin

18.04.2016

Present: DH alongwith Mr. Vipin Poria, Ld. Counsel.JD (from JC in Ex. 40/14) alongwith Ld. Counsel.

Copy of petition supplied to JD.

Put up on 17.05.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No.1075/1Deepti Vs Prem Singh

18.04.2016

Present: Father of complainant alongwith Mr. A.N. Pandey, Ld. Counsel.Respondent alongwith Mr. Manju Sehrawat, Ld. Counsel.

Parties submit that a settlement was arrived at between

the parties on 27.01.2016 on the basis of which petition u/s 125

Cr.PC was disposed off. However, respondent has not paid as

agreed.

Put up for CE on 01.08.2016.

In the meantime, parties may deliberate on their

settlement.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No.277/1Poonam Vs Vikas

18.04.2016

File taken up today as 15.04.2016 was holiday.

Present: Complainant in person alongwith Mr. Yashveer, Ld. Counsel.Respondent is absent. Ms. Sarla Tanwar, ld. Proxy Counsel for respondent.

It is submitted that respondent is in custody in connected

Execution petition which is listed for 27.04.2016.

Put up for CE on 27.04.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.73/13PS: CWC, Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Fresh Cancellation report filed. It be checked and registered.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO W/SI Asha in person.

Vide order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated

08.03.2016 in Crl. MC no. 977/2016 titled Vijay Pandey & Ors.

VS. GNCT of Delhi & Anr. (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait)

vide which present FIR no. 73/2013 u/s 406/498-A/34 IPC PS

CWC, Nanakpura and the consequent proceedings have been

quashed after settlement.

File be consigned to record room.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

State VS. Ritesh Jain FIR No. 113/2011 PS: CWC Nanakpura

U/s 498-A/406 IPC

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for State.

Accused / applicant Ritesh Jain in person along with

Mr Sidharth Basu, Ld Counsel.

File taken up on application of accused Ritesh Jain for

seeking permission to go abroad.

The applicant/accused Ritesh Jain states that he has to

go to Guangzhou, China and Hong Kong on official trip from his

company BAP Creations Pvt. Ltd. from 22.04.2016 to 01.05.2016.

Heard. Application stands allowed subject to directions

that accused shall return back to India before NDOH i.e. 05.05.2016

and shall not misuse the liberty and shall not avoid the process of

the court.

Fix on already fixed date i.e. 05.05.2016. Copy of order

be given dasti to applicant.

Application is disposed off.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.272/13PS:Chhawla

18.04.2016

Fresh Challan filed. It be checked and registered.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO absent.

Record perused.

I take cognizance of the offence u/s 323/354/354B/

506/34 IPC.

Issue summons to accused Krishan and Surender for

23.07.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.26/14PS:Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Fresh Challan filed. It be checked and registered.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO SI Asha in person.

Heard. Record perused.

I take cognizance of the offence u/s 498A/34 IPC.

Issue summons to accused Charles, Harrison and

Georgina for 10.08.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.165/13PS:Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Fresh Challan filed. It be checked and registered.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO SI Asha in person.

Heard. Record perused.

It is submitted that the quashing petition is listed for

12.07.2016.

Put up on 11.08.2016.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.96/14PS:Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO SI Asha in person.

This is an application seeking issuance of fresh summons u/s 105B Cr.PC against accused Ravish Maqsood.

It is submitted that previous summons have not been received back till date.

Heard. Record perused.

Fresh summons u/s 105 B Cr.PC. be issued in name of

accused Ravish Maqsood S/o Sh. Maqsood Hussain R/o 16-08,

Heritage View Tower, Singapore-138678 returnable for 19.09.2016,

in proper format as per rules, through MHA.

Copy of the order be given dasti to IO.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.15/14PS:Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.SI Asha in person.

It is submitted that accused Ankit was given 5 days pre-

arrest notice after which he joined investigation on 29.02.2016, after

passing of the last order. It is further stated that accused Ankit has

been granted interim protection by Ld. ASJ and the matter has been

referred to Mediation.

Application is accordingly disposed off.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No.42/13PS: J.P.Kalan

18.04.2016

Fresh Challan filed. It be checked and registered.

Present: Ld. APP for the State.IO absent.

Put up for consideration on 24.06.2016. Issue notice to

IO.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

CC No. Hasmohan Upadhyaya Vs Rohit Ranjan

18.04.2016

Fresh complaint received from Facilitation Center by way of assignment from Ld. CMM. It be checked and registered.

Present: Sh. Jubar Ahmad Khan, Ld counsel for complainant with complainant.

This is a complaint filed u/s 12 of Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Heard.

On court questioning complainant submits that she

started living with her husband and her two kids at Samridhi

Apartments, Dwarka after the previously filed DV Case was settled

between the parties. She states that her brother in law Rahul, sister

in law Shyamla and mother in law Damyanti did not live in the same

house but often visited the said flat at Samridhi Apartments, Dwarka.

Since, there was no shared household between complainant and

respondents other than Rohit, they cannot be summoned under DV

Act.

Complainant states that she faces imminent threat to her

physical and mental well being from respondent Rohit and in this

regard she places reliance on messages sent by respondent to her

and her sister Shamjeet Kaur with whom she is currently living. She

also places reliance on MLC dated 04.01.2016 and kalandra

proceedings dated 07.01.2016. I am satisfied that complainant

needs immediate protection from the respondent Rohit. As such, an

exparte order is passed in favour of complainant Hasmohan and

against respondent Rohit who is restrained from communicating with

complainant in any manner whatsoever till further orders. Needless

to say, he shall not commit any act of domestic violence against the

complainant. Concerned SHO is directed to ensure that the order be

complied with.

Complainant has filed an affidavit u/s 23 DV Act.

However, no separate application for interim relief is filed.

Complainant has also not filed affidavit of assets.

Notice be issued to Protection Officer for filing DIR report

within one week. Summons be issued to both respondents on PF /

RC within 7 days.

Fix for appearance and reply on 25.05.2016.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the complainant.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 49/14PS: Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for the State.All accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel.

Bonds furnished by accused. Same are taken on record

and accepted.

File be consigned to record room.

( Richa Gusain Solanki ) MM-01/Mahila Court

SW/18.04.2016

FIR No. 69/13PS:CWC Nanakpura

18.04.2016

Present: Ld. APP for State.All accused in person alongwith ld counsel (in Morning).Complainant in person (in Morning).

Complainant Gurpreet states that she got married to

accused Jai Kumar on 31.01.2010 and her family spent sufficient

money on the wedding and dowry but the accused Suman (MIL) and

Bhagwan (FIL) did not look happy with the marriage. She alleges

that when she reached her matrimonial house, she was not made to

feel welcome and accused Suman and Bhagwan started verbally

abusing her and told Jai Kumar that they would not let the

complainant to stay in the house and until complainant's father gives

car and cash, they will make her life a hell. On 01.02.2010 accused

Harsha (SIL) abused the complainant and told her that she was a

servant in the house. On 02.02.2010, accused Jai told the

complainant to get car or cash for car when she was leaving for

phera ceremony. On 30.03.2010, complainant's in-laws beat her and

she called her parents. When her parents arrived, Bhagwan called

PCR but the matter was settled amicably. However things did not

change. In November 2010, complainant conceived but the news

was not welcomed by the accused and one day in February accused

Suman and Harsha pushed her from the stairs. That same day

complainant returned to her parental house. Later accused Jai took

complainant back but the same circumstances continued. On

19.08.2011, child Chahat was born but Suman started fighting with

the complainant for not giving birth to a son. She alleges that once

her daughter was also hit by accused Jai and that day she returned

to her parental house. However Suman and Jai came after avout 10

days and took them back on he assurance that they will not repeat

the same in future. Still things did not change and after 2 months,

accused came to know that complainant's parents have sold a flat

and they started demanding money. Accordingly a cash of Rs 3 lakh

was given by complainant's mother. On 02.07.2012 accused Suman,

Jai and Harsha beat the complainant for insisting on getting her

voter ID made. They then called complainant's mother saying that

complainant is unwell but complainant's mother made PCR call.

Complainant was taken to DDU hospital and on 03.07.2012 accused

Jai got complainant admitted in Batra hospital and left her there. On

04.07.2012, Jai told complainant's mother to take complainant and

child for few days but he never took them back. Since then

complainant is living with her parents.

During investigation complainant refused to accept

articles as per admitted list and to go for recovery of istridhan

articles.

In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,

complainant reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. She

also stated that on 02.02.2010 when she was going for phera

ceremony accused Jai told her to get Swift car or money for

purchase of the car, otherwise he will make life difficult for her. After

she returned all accused asked about the car and when she

expressed her inability, all accused verbally abused her. She also

stated that accused Suman told her that there has been a theft in the

locality and therefore, complainant should hand over all her jewellery

to her for keeping in the locker. Accordingly, complainant gave all

her jewellery to Suman but the same was not returned to her on

demand on festivities. She stated that when accused came to know

that her parents have sold a flat they demanded Rs. 8-9 Lacs for

building a floor. Accordingly, her mother gave Rs. 3 Lac but after

three days accused again started demanding money and verbally

abused her.

Heard. Perused.

Complainant alleges that immediately after her

marriage she was harassed for dowry by the accused. However, she

fails to mention even a single incident when a specific demand was

made by the accused except the demand by accused Jai on

02.02.2010. She alleges that accused persons demanded car and

cash but she does not mention which accused made what demand

and when. She alleges that all the accused verbally abused her after

she returned from phera ceremony but no specific roles are

assigned. She also alleges that accused persons demanded Rs. 8-9

Lacs but again it is not specified as to who demanded the same and

in what manner.

All the allegations are too cryptic to go ahead with

framing of charge for the offence u/s 498A IPC against accused

Bhagwan Das, Suman and Harsha.

In so far as the allegations of the offence U/s 406 IPC

are concerned, complainant stated that she gave her jewellery to

accused Suman for safe keeping but accused did not return it. No

such allegation was made in the initial complaint. Moreover during

investigation complainant refused to accept articles as per admitted

list and to go for recovery of istridhan articles.

It is trite that where the material placed before the

Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will be

fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. If two

views are equally possible and the Court is satisfied that the

evidence produced gives rise to some suspicion but not grave

suspicion against the accused, the Court must discharge the

accused.

The chargesheet does not give rise to a grave

suspicion against accused Bhagwan Das, Suman and Harsha and

as such, they are discharged for the offence under Sec

498A /406/34 IPC.

They are directed to file PB/SB in the sum of Rs

10,000/- under Section 437A Cr.PC.

However, there are sufficient grounds to frame charge

for the offence u/s 498A IPC against accused Jai Kumar.

It is already 5.00 pm.

Put up for bonds, framing of charge and PE on

25.07.2016.

(Richa Gusain Solanki)MM/Mahila Court-0118.04.2016

CC No. 932/1

Pallavi vs Rakesh

18.04.2016

Present : Complainant in person alongwith ld counsel

By this order I shall decide application U/s 23 Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as

DV Act) for interim maintenance filed by the complainant.

1. Complainant submits that she got married to respondent no.1

on 12.06.2011 and her family spent sufficient money on

marriage as dowry articles. The couple was blessed with a

son on 11.06.2012. It is alleged that all the respondents used

to torture her for dowry and would keep her without food.

They would verbally abuse her and even tried to abort her

pregnancy. On 11.07.2014, respondent abused the

complainant and she went to PS Palam but to no avail. She

then returned to her parental house but on 24.070.2014, her

in laws came to take her back. She returned to the

matrimonial house on their assurance but on the very next

day, she was abused and the respondents tried to snatch her

child from her. Complainant aaleges that she has been

subjected to cruelties by the respondents for dowry and they

have even attempted to kill her.

2. In this application, it is prayed that respondents be restrained

from selling, transferring or creating third party interest over

shared household. It is also prayed that respondent no. 1 be

directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month towards monthly

maintenance.

3. Respondents have filed their reply denying all the allegations

made in the complaint. It is stated that the complainant left

the company of her husband without any reason and by her

own will. It is stated that the couple shifted to a rented

accommodation soon after marriage and therefore all

allegations against other respondents are baseless. It is

stated that complainant is of suspicious and quarrelsome

nature.

4. Both the parties filed their detailed affidavit of assets.

5. Complainant states that she has done English Hons. but has

never been employed. She states that she spends Rs.

4,800/- per month on the education of son Ranu. She has

claimed that her household expenditure is Rs. 10,000/- pm,

her expenditure on water, gas, electricity etc. is Rs. 3,600/-

per month, medical expenditure is Rs. 2,500/- per month,

apart from miscellaneous expenditure of Rs. 4,000/- pm and

litigation expenses.

6. Respondent states that he has done MBA and is unemployed

at present. He claims that his parents are his dependents. He

further claims that he spends Rs. 12,000/- approx. per month

on rent and repairs, Rs. 10,000/- per month on groceries,

clothing etc. and Rs. 7500/- on water, gas and electricity etc.

He further states that he spends Rs. 5,000/- per month on

fuel, Rs. 11,000/- quarterly on car maintenance, Rs. 15,000/-

per year on car insurance and Rs. 11,396/- per month on loan

repayment for car. He has claimed a total monthly

expenditure of Rs. 35,000/-. He has filed his relieving

certificate whereby he was relieved from his services as

Team Leader on 03.10.2015.

7. Heard. Perused.

8. It may be mentioned at the outset that the factum of marriage,

the birth of child Ranu during the subsistence of marriage and

that the parties resided together is not disputed by the

respondents.

9. The question of domestic abuse can only be decided after

leading evidence. Complainant has claimed that she was

abused for dowry. She also alleges that respondent no.1 has

not been paying any maintenance for her and the child.

Although respondent has denied all these allegations but

respondent no.1 admits that he is living separately from

complainant and the child and is not paying money for their

maintenance, albeit for justifiable reasons. This itself

constitutes domestic violence. Prima facie, at this stage, the

case of the complainant appears to be more probable.

10.Even though respondent submits that he is unemployed,

perusal of his salary slips reveal that he was earning at least

Rs. 85,173/- and upto Rs. 1,55,230/- per month when he was

employed. It is to be considered that respondent was

employed with his last company for over five years. He is an

MBA and a man with such potential and abilities is not

expected to sit at home idle. His bank account statements

reflect that even though he is an unemployed since

03.10.2015, his lifestyle remains the same. It is not

understood how a man with no means can afford the

expenditure on rent, car, insurance and fuel as mentioned in

the affidavit of respondent no.1. He still claims that his

household expenditure is Rs. 17,500/- but has nothing to offer

to his wife and child. If his affidavit is taken to be true and it is

believed that he is indeed spending Rs. 35,000/- only on

himself, he should expect complainant to have more

expenditure since she is maintaining the child apart from

herself.

11.However, it is to be noted that complainant is also qualified

and as per the respondents she was working as a Teacher in

Bhojpur till March, 2011. We are living in an era of equality of

sexes and no woman can claim that she is capable of earning

but will not earn and demand maintenance from the husband.

At the moment the child of the couple is very young but

complainant cannot be allowed to claim maintenance from

respondent for all times to come.

12. Complainant claims that she is pending Rs. 4,800/- per

month only on the education of the child. Given the status of

the parties, it is directed that respondent shall pay a sum of

Rs. 10,000/- per month for the maintenance of the child Ranu

and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- pm for the maintenance of the

complainant. This amount shall be payable to the child Ranu

w.e.f. date of filing of petition i.e. September 2014 till the final

disposal of the case and to the complainant w.ef September,

2014 till 1 year from today i.e. till April, 2017. In this period of

one year, complainant is expected to take up a job for her

maintenance.

Respondent no 1 is directed to clear all arrears accrued till

date within six months from today.

13. Complainant has prayed that respondents be restrained from

selling, transferring or creating third party interest over shared

household, however since complainant is living with her

parents, this relief is denied at this stage.

14.Application disposed of accordingly. Nothing contained herein

shall tantamount to an expression on the merits of the case.

Re-list for CE on 25.07.2016.

(Richa Gusain Solanki) MM/Mahila Court-01 18.04.2016