Upload
hakien
View
228
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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