Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
State vs Om Prakash & Ors on 29 July, 2022
Law Point:
JUDGEMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of accordingly. CRL.M.A. 12446/2022 (condonation of delay)
3. This application is filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 119 days, in filing the present petition.
4. For the reason stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
5. The application is disposed of accordingly. CRL.REV.P. 398/2022
6. Heard, learned APP on behalf of the petitioner/State.
7. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Court of learned ASJ (SFTC), Dwarka Court East, New Delhi with respect to SC No.698/2021 in FIR No. 39/2021 whereby, the respondents have been discharged from the charges under Sections 376/498A/328/56/34 of IPC.
8. The facts of the case show that on 23.08.2019, a written complaint was made which was received by the concerned police station on 05.06.2020. In continuation to the said complaint another complaint was made on 23.01.2021 and the prosecutrix therein, had stated that the respondent No.1/Om Prakash met the complainant on 30.09.2017 and thereafter, they became good friends. It is stated therein, that the accused proposed her for marriage and started waiting outside her office every day. According to the complainant their friendship became very intense. The accused thereafter taken the prosecutrix to various places and the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault. After registration of the FIR, the prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed, however, the learned court below, having examined the entire material available on record and on the facts of the present case, did not find sufficient material to frame the charges for the offences alleged against the accused. The State, therefore, is in the instant revision petition challenging the order passed by the court below discharging the respondent/accused.
9. Learned APP for the State vehemently submits that at the stage of charge, the court below was not expected to analyse the entire material available of record and should have confined its scrutiny only to the extent of finding it prima facie as to whether the offences alleged are made out or not. He, therefore, submits that the court below has exceeded to its jurisdiction in entering into merits of the case and, therefore, interference is called for.
10. I have perused the findings given by the court below while discharging the respondents. It is not disputed that the accused had married to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that the respondent No.1/husband was demanding dowry of ₹10,00,000/- . The same demand was made by other family members of her husband. Since that the respondent No.1 married to prosecutrix and, therefore, there cannot be any grievance on behalf of the prosecutrix that she was sexually abused, on the pretext of promise of marriage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1, has discussed the law with respect to misconception of facts and considered the distinction between the false promise and breach of promise. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. Even insofar as allegation under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, the findings given by the court below in para No.6 clearly shows that the prosecutrix herself had pardoned the accused and condoned the cruelty, allegedly committed upon her.
11. It is also evident that from the entire chargesheet that there is no allegation of any sexual assault after the marriage was solemnised which would fall within the definition of rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC. Even otherwise also, there is no allegation for an offence under Section 498A, as no particulars or any specific incident is mentioned anywhere in the entire record.
12. In view of the aforesaid, under the facts of the present case, this court finds that the learned court below has not committed any error in (2019) 9 SCC 608 discharging the respondents. Accordingly, the instant revision stands dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment