Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 5 June, 2025
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.:- 275/2024
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-004962-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Pal
2. Indu Devi
W/o Rakesh Kumar
Both Residents of:-
A-80, First Floor,
Gali No.5, Kh. No. 27/14,
Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi,
New Delhi-110041 .... Revisionists
VERSUS
The State
(NCT of Delhi) .... Respondent Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:05 -0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 1/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of institution of the revision petition : 31/05/2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 07/05/2025
Date of judgment : 05/06/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously
adjudicate upon criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) filed by the
revisionists against the order dated 30/03/2024 (‘hereinafter referred to as
‘impugned order’) passed by Ms. Alka Singh, Ld. MM (Mahila Court-03), West
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No. 650/2019 PS Nangloi
u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC titled as “State Vs. Ankur Soni & Ors. “
In the present revision petition, the revisionists have prayed to call
the Trial Court record, to set-aside the impugned order dated 30/03/2024 passed
by Ld. Trial Court and to discharge the revisionists for the offence
u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present revision
petition as stated in the present revision petition are that the revisionists are the
accused in case FIR No. 650/2019 PS Nangloi u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. FIR was
registered by the complainant Barkha Verma. Revisionists are the father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the complainant. Vide impugned order, charge for the
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:14 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 2/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC was framed against the revisionists. Revisionists
have not filed any other or similar revision petition before any Court.
3. The revisionists have challenged the impugned order on the
grounds, as mentioned in the present revision petition.
Grounds of revision- Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the facts that the
present case is nothing but only bundle of false allegations without any
corroborative substance against the revisionists. Ld. Trial Court has ignored the
fact that revisionists are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and they never lived
with the complainant. Marriage of the complainant was solemnized with
accused Ankur Soni in a very simple manner and it was love marriage. Ld. Trial
Court has ignored the fact that the complainant has failed to make any specific
allegation against the revisionists for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. There is
no specific allegation against the revisionists in the complaint, FIR and statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. All the allegations have been made only against the accused
Ankur Soni. Allegations against the revisionists are general in nature and purpose
of allegations was to harass her husband Ankur Soni and entire family members.
Complainant has failed to disclose as to whether the revisionists were involved in
demand of dowry, cruelty and keeping her jewellery. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly
presumed and framed the charge against the revisionists. There is no allegation
against the revisionists for beating and harassing the complainant. No MLC and
medical document has been filed by the complainant. Complainant in her
complaint has specifically made the allegations that her jewellery are lying with
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:19 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 3/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)her husband. It is also admitted by the complainant in her CAW complaint that
she was living on rent and her husband left her after beating her and also took
away her scooty. After the marriage, complainant and accused Ankur Soni started
residing separately in rented accommodation and their son Aahan Soni was born
while they were living in rented accommodation. Revisionists are innocent and
they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant just to
settle the dispute with her husband Ankur Soni to pressurize him for divorce with
mutual consent, so that, the complainant could extort money from him.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the present revision petition
advanced by Ld. Counsel for the revisionists and Ld. Addl. PP for the
State/respondent. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel
for the revisionists that the impugned order is not interlocutory order and the
present revision petition against the impugned order is maintainable and
impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the
present revision petition. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for
the State/respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in
accordance with law and there is no merits in the present revision petition and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the revisionists in support of his contentions has relied
upon the following case laws:-
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:24 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 4/30
(a) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. V. State of Bihar
& Ors.{(2022) 1 SCR 558}
(b) Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam {[2009] 9 SCR
902}
(c) Savitri Devi V. Ramesh Chand & Ors. {CRL. R.
462/2002 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi on 19/05/2003}
5. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have
challenged the order dated 30/03/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The
impugned order is reproduced as under:-
“30/03/2024
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Complainant with Ld. Counsel.
Accused Rakesh and Indu Devi with Ld.
Counsel.
Accused Ankur is absent.
An application seeking exemption from personal
appearance has been moved on behalf of accused Ankur.
Heard. Perused. Keeping in view the reasons stated in the
application, exemption is allowed for today only.
Arguments on charge heard on behalf of all the
accused persons as well as on behalf of the State.
It is submitted by the counsel for accused
persons that complainant has not made any allegations against
her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The counsel has also
relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:30 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 5/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)as well as on the judgments on Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, as
per which, the general & omnibus allegations are not sufficient
to frame charge. Thus, it is the submissions of the counsel, that
complainant has falsely made this complaint without any
ground.
Per contra, it is submission of the Ld. APP for
State, that all the accused persons are liable to be charged for
offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
Heard. Considered.
It is settled by catena of judgments that at the
stage of charge framing, the allegations made in the
complaint / FIR and other material relied in the police report
u/s 173 Cr.PC only have to be considered on their face value
and the Court at this stage is not expected to screen evidence;
the Court is to only consider the material with a view to find
out if there is ground for ‘presuming’ that accused has
committed the offence and not for the purpose of arriving at
the conclusion that would lead to conviction.
In view of the above, from the material placed on
record there are specific allegations of cruelty and demand of
dowry against the husband, the mother-in-law and the father-
in-law in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC and that she
was harassed with respect to the demand of dowry.
She has also specifically alleged that all the
accused persons kept all her jewellery articles including
streedhan and did not return it even after she demanded it.
Hence, in view of these allegations and
supported documents, prima facie sufficient material is
available on record, to frame charge against all the accused u/s
498-A/406/34 IPC.
Charge is accordingly framed against the
accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi, to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:35 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 6/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Put up for appearance of accused Ankur and
framing of charge against him on 17/05/2024.
Copy of order be given dasti.
(ALKA SINGH)
MM (Mahila Court-03),
West, THC, Delhi/30.03.2024 ”
6. For the sake of ready reference, section 397 Cr.P.C. is reproduced
as under:-
Section 397:- Calling for records to exercise powers of
revision: (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge
may call for and examine the record of any proceeding
before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his
local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or
himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to
the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court,
and may, when calling for such record, direct that the
execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the
accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on
his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation- All Magistrates, whether Executive or
Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate
jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions
Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section
398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:41 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 7/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)(1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory
order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other
proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made
by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions
Judge, no further application by the same person shall be
entertained by the other of them.
7. A plain reading of Section 397 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that
Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. enables the aggrieved parties to question the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the
inferior court before the revisional court i.e. the High Court or the Sessions Judge
as concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge
by the Section. Now, it is significant to note that Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. mandates
that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order in any appeal,
enquiry, trial or other proceeding. Therefore, express bar is created by the
legislation under section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. to entertain revision against an
interlocutory order.
The term “interlocutory order” as mentioned in section 397 (2)
Cr.P.C. denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not
decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. An order which is
pure and simple interlocutory order, which do not decide anything finally is to be
considered as interlocutory order and no revision against that interlocutory order
is maintainable under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. in view of the express bar imposed
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:46 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 8/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)under section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
There are three categories of orders that a Court can pass- final,
intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a
Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction- that is in respect of a final order of
acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the Court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as
an intermediate order is concerned, the Court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. An intermediate order is one
which is interlocutory order in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of
terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order.
8. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as ”
Amar Nath & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Anr.” {(1977) 4 SCC 137} that:-
“The main question which falls for determination in this appeal
is as to what is the connotation of the term “interlocutory order”
as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any
revision of such an order by the High Court. The term
“interlocutory order” is a term of well-known legal significance
and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in
various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters
Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster’s
New World Dictionary “interlocutory” has been defined as an
order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down
that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which
decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a
particular aspect. It seems to us that the term “interlocutory
order” in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:52 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 9/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely
denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do
not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the
parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the
accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to
be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High
Court against that order, because that would be against the very
object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular
provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance,
orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders
for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the
pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory
orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397
(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment
and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a
particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory
order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court”.
It was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
” V.C. Shukla V. State through C.B.I.” (AIR 1980 SC 962] that:-
(1) that an order which does not determine the rights of the
parties but only one aspect of the suit or the trial is an
interlocutory order;
(2) that the concept of interlocutory order has to be explained,
in contradistinction to a final order. In other words, if an order is
not a final order, it would be an interlocutory order;
(3) that one of the tests generally accepted by the English
Courts and the Federal Court is to see if the order is decided in
one way, it may terminate the proceedings but if decided in
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:00:57 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 10/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)another way, then the proceedings would continue; because, in
our opinion, the term ‘interlocutory order’ in the Criminal
Procedure Code has been used in a much wider sense so as to
include even intermediate or quasi final orders;
(4) that an order passed by the Special Court discharging the
accused would undoubtedly be a final order inasmuch as it
finally decides the rights of the parties and puts an end to the
controversy and thereby terminates the entire proceedings
before the court so that nothing is left to be done by the court
thereafter;
(5) that even if the Act does not permit an appeal against an
interlocutory order the accused is not left without any remedy
because in suitable cases, the accused can always move this
Court in its jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution even
against an order framing charges against the accused. Thus, it
cannot be said that by not allowing an appeal against an order
framing charges, the Act works serious injustice to the accused.
It was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. V. Fazru” {(2004) 13 SCC 269} that:-
“Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14th Edn. p. 529) defines
interlocutory order thus:
“An interlocutory order or judgment is one made or given
during the progress of an action, but which does not finally
dispose of the rights of the parties.”
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an
interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order
which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the
rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:01 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 11/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)words, in ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is
one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue
or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which
does not however conclude the trial at all.”
The principles/guidelines regarding the scope of criminal revision
petition have also been laid-down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case
titled as “Girish Kumar Suneja V. Central Bureau of Investigation” {(2017) 14
SCC 809} and it was held that :-
“15. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise
of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely
curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof. There is a complete
prohibition on a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in
respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of
orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction?
16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass
final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in
respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision
jurisdiction – that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or
conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an
interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision
jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the
court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an
interlocutory order.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further
elucidated in Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra by
contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order.Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:06 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 12/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order
is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has
the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting
in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come
to mind – an order taking cognizance of an offence and
summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima
facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order
taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has
the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person
resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order
for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging
the accused person and resulting in a final order in his or her
favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed
in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed
in another way, the proceeding would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath and Madhu Limaye
was followed in K.K. Patel V. State of Gujarat wherein a
revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance
and issuance of a process. It was said: (K.K.Patel case, SCC
p.201, para11)
“11. ….. It is now well-nigh settled that in
deciding whether an order challenged is
interlocutory or not as for Section 397 (2) of
the Code, the sole test is not whether such order
was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar
Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State
of Maharastra, V.C. Shukla v. State and Rajendra
Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible
test is whether by upholding the objections
raised by a party, it would result in culminating
the proceedings, if so any order passed on such
objections would not be merely interlocutory in
nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:11 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 13/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)Code. In the present case, if the objection raised
by the appellants were upheld by the Court the
entire prosecution proceedings would have been
terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the
order was revisable.”
27. Our conclusion on this subject is that while the
appellants might have an entitlement (not a right) to file a
revision petition in the High Court but that entitlement can be
taken away and in any event, the High Court is under no
obligation to entertain a revision petition – such a petition can be
rejected at the threshold. If the High Court is inclined to accept
the revision petition it can do so only against a final order or an
intermediate order, namely, an order which if set aside would
result in the culmination of the proceedings. As we see it, there
appear to be only two such eventualities of a revisable order
and in any case only one such eventuality is before us.
Consequently the result of para 10 of the order passed by this
Court is that the entitlement of the appellants to file a revision
petition in the High Court is taken away and thereby the
High Court is deprived of exercising the extraordinary
discretionary power available under Section 397 Cr.P.C.”
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as
“Neelam Mahajan & Anr. V. The State & Ors.” {(2016) 229 DLT (CN) 29} that:-
“…….. In this regard catena of judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has settled the legal principle while
holding that the meaning of the two words “final” and
“interlocutory” has to be considered separately in relation to
the particular purpose for which it is required. However,
generally speaking, a judgment or order which determines the
principal matter in question is termed final and simultaneously, Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:16 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 14/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
an interlocutory order, though not conclusive of the main
dispute may be conclusive as to the subordinate matter with
which it deals. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, if the decision on an issue puts an end to the suit, the
order is undoubtedly a final one but if the suit is still left alive
and has yet to be tried in the ordinary way, no finality could be
attached to the order.”
9. By way of present revision petition, the revisionists have
challenged the impugned order dated 30/03/2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Vide impugned order dated 30/03/2024, order on charge was passed by the Ld.
Trial Court and charge was framed against the accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu
Devi.
Now this Court has to see as to whether the impugned order is
interlocutory, intermediate or final order.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Kumar
Suneja case (supra) that order for framing of charge is an intermediate order.
Hence, the present revision petition qua order on charge/framing of
charge is maintainable.
Now, this Court shall discuss the merits of the present revision
petition.
10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here the
proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant, FIR No.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:21 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 15/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)650/2019 was got registered by the Police of Police Station Nangloi. After
registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on
completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the offence u/s. 498-A/406/34
IPC was submitted in the Ld. Trial Court on 04/08/2020 for trial of the accused
Ankur Soni (husband), Rakesh Kumar (father-in-law) and Indu Devi (mother-in-
law). Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated
22/03/2021. In compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of the charge-sheet
were supplied to all accused. Vide impugned order dated 30/03/2024, order on
charge was passed by the Ld. Trial Court and charge for the offence u/s
498-A/406/34 IPC was framed against the accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu
Devi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 24/07/2024, charge
was framed against the accused Ankur Soni in terms of order dated 30/03/2024,
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide impugned order, it was
observed by the Ld. Trial Court that prima-facie sufficient material is available
on record to frame charge against all accused for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34
IPC. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
11. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss the law relating
to charge/discharge.
It is well settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the
allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other material relied by the police in
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only has to be taken into consideration taking
the evidence collected on its face value. At this stage, the Court is not expected to
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:25 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 16/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether the prosecution will be
able to prove the case against the accused on trial or not.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Sajjan Kumar V. CBI” {(2010) 9 SCC 368} that :-
“21. On consideration of the authorities about
scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the
following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out. The test to determine
prima facie case would depend upon the facts of
each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which
has not been properly explained, the Court will be
fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial.
(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office
or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:30 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 17/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the
Court could form an opinion that the accused
might have committed offence, it can frame the
charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into but before framing a charge the Court
must apply its judicial mind on the material placed
on record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court
is required to evaluate the material and documents
on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered
to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not
to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal.” Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:35 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 18/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Bhawna Bai V. Ghanshyam” {(2020) 2 SCC 217} that :-
“…At the time of framing the charges, only prima
facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond
reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At
the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see
if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict
standard of proof is not required; only prima facie
case against the accused is to be seen.”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Manendra Prasad Tiwari V. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr.” {2022 SCC OnLine SC
1057} that :-
“21. The law is well settled that although it is open
to a High Court entertaining a petition under
Section 482 of the CrPC or a revision application
under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash the
charges framed by the trial court, yet the same
cannot be done by weighing the correctness or
sufficiency of the evidence. In a case praying for
quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted
by the High Court should be that if the entire
evidence produced by the prosecution is to be
believed, would it constitute an offence or not.
The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability
of the material produced at the time of framing of
a charge can be done only at the stage of trial. To
put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:41 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 19/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)Court is to examine the materials only with a view
to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission
of offence alleged has been made out against the
accused person. It is also well settled that when the
petition is filed by the accused under Section 482
CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the
quashing of charge framed against him, the Court
should not interfere with the order unless there are
strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice
and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a
charge framed against the accused needs to be
quashed. Such an order can be passed only in
exceptional cases and on rare occasions. It is to be
kept in mind that once the trial court has framed a
charge against an accused the trial must proceed
without unnecessary interference by a superior
court and the entire evidence from the prosecution
side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an
accused for quashing of a charge before the entire
prosecution evidence has come on record should
not be entertained sans exceptional cases.
22. The scope of interference and exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC has been
time and again explained by this Court. Further,
the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC
at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also
well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the
court is concerned not with the proof of the
allegation rather it has to focus on the material and
form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion
that the accused has committed an offence, which
if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:46 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 20/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test
of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the
stage of framing the charge, the court should form
an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of
committing an offence, is to hold something
which is neither permissible nor is in consonance
with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the
power to call for and examine the records of an
inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings
or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error
of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has
crept in the proceeding.”
12. Now, this Court shall discuss the merits of the case.
As per complaint dated 27/05/2019 of the complainant, the
marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused Ankur Soni on
15/02/2016 and they are having a son namely Ahaan Soni and accused Ankur
Soni used to demand dowry from her and also used to beat and physically torture
her. It is also mentioned in the complaint that her father-in-law and mother-in-law
are also involved. It is also mentioned that after the one month of marriage, they
started harassing and beating her. It is also mentioned in the complaint that
accused Ankur Soni is having illicit relations with his niece Reetika and they
used to threaten the complainant and complainant and her son are having the
apprehension of their life from them. It is also mentioned in the complaint that
accused Ankur Soni is having her gold articles. It is also mentioned in the Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:50 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 21/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
complaint that at present, accused Ankur Soni is residing at A-80, Shiv Ram
Park, Gali No.5.
Almost similar facts have also been mentioned in the charge-sheet
of the present case.
In the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, it is mentioned
that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the accused Ankur Soni on
15/02/2016 as per Hindu rituals and her parents spent about 10-11 Lakh in the
marriage. It is also mentioned that after few days of marriage, her mother-in-law
kept all her jewellery with her and she did not return the same despite demand. It
is also mentioned that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law tortured her
and demanded dowry and also beaten her. It is also mentioned that she alongwith
her husband has resided in the tenanted premises for few months. It is also
mentioned that on 03/11/2017, a son was born out of the said wedlock. It is also
mentioned that on 26/05/2019 her husband and in-laws beaten her and she
alongwith her son was thrown out of the matrimonial house.
13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss the case law
relating to the mentioning of names of the family members i.e. in-laws in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute.
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. V. State of Telangana & Anr.” {(2024) 12 SCR
559} that :-
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:01:55 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 22/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
“25. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact,
borne out of judicial experience, that there is often
a tendency to implicate all the members of the
husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out
of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete
evidence or particularised allegations cannot form
the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must
exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of
legal provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family
members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6,
who are the members of the family of appellant
No.1 have been living in different cities and have
not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant
No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they
cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and
the same would be an abuse of the process of the
law in the absence of specific allegations made
against each of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb
cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and
his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have been a
notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the
country, accompanied by growing discord and
tension within the institution of marriage,
consequently, there has been a growing tendency
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:00 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 23/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC
as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against
the husband and his family by a wife. Making
vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead
to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against
the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a
wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and
again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband
and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie
case against them.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as
follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There are many other
reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:05 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 24/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their “young” days
in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts
have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realties into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment by the husband’s close relatives who
had been living in different cities and never visited
or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complainant
are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection.”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors. ” {(2022) 1 SCR
558} that :-
“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the accused. It is further manifest from the Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:09 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 25/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)said judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore,
this court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and
in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them.
19. …… Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the
Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have
been attributed any specific role in furtherance of
the general allegations made against them. This
simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused in
furtherance of the offence. The allegations are
therefore general and omnibus and can at best be
said to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since
he has not appealed against the order of the High
court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as far as
the Appellants are concerned, the allegations
made against them being general and omnibus, do
not warrant prosecution.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific
role attributed to the accused appellants, it would
be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through
the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where
the relatives of the complainant’s husband are
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:14 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 26/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by
this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe
scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must
therefore be discouraged.”
Similar propositions were also laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in cases titled as (1) Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. V.
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. {2025 INSC 562} and (2) Digambar & Anr.
V. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. {2024 INSC 1019}.
14. It is admitted fact that the impugned order has not been challenged
by the accused Ankur Soni. Hence, this Court shall not examine the veracity of
the allegations made against him.
As per complaint dated 27/05/2019 of the complainant, after the
marriage, she was beaten by the accused Ankur Soni number of times and her
father-in-law and mother-in-law were also involved. In the statement u/s. 161
Cr.P.C. of the complainant, it is mentioned that her husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law have beaten her. In the complaint dated 27/05/2019 of the
complainant, almost all the allegations were made against the accused Ankur
Soni. There is no medical document/ documentary evidence in the Trial Court
record as well as present revision petition to show that complainant was beaten
by the revisionists/accused persons.
It is mentioned by the complainant in the complaint dated
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:18 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 27/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
27/05/2019 that her gold articles are lying with the accused Ankur Soni. On the
other hand, it is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant
that her all jewellery were kept by her mother-in-law and she did not return the
same despite demand. Aforesaid averments as mentioned in the complaint and
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory in this regard. Even, in the complaint
dated 27/05/2019 and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., date, month and year of the same
have not been specified by the complainant when the jewellery were kept by the
accused Ankur Soni or Indu Devi.
Except the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, there is
nothing on the record to show that jewellery articles were/are lying with the
revisionists. There is nothing on the record as to what investigation has been
conducted by the IO in this regard. There is also nothing on the record to show as
to what effort was made by the IO to recover the same. Charge-sheet of the
present case is silent in this regard.
In the complaint dated 27/05/2019, there is no allegation of
demand of dowry against the revisionists/accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi.
In the complaint dated 27/05/2019, allegations of demand of dowry are only
against the accused Ankur Soni. It is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
of the complainant that after the marriage, accused persons taunted the
complainant for bringing less dowry and also demanded the dowry from the
complainant. In the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, no specific
date, month and year has been mentioned when the revisionists/accused persons
taunted the complainant for bringing less dowry and also demanded the dowry
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:22 -0100CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 28/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)from her.
It is mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant
that she alongwith her husband has resided in the tenanted premises for few
months. In the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, it is not specified by
the complainant as to for what period, she alongwith accused Ankur Soni has
resided in the tenanted premises.
In the complaint dated 27/05/2019, it is mentioned by the
complainant that she is residing at 145-A, Veena Enclave, Nangloi and at present,
her husband Ankur Soni is residing at A-80, Shiv Park, Gali No.5. It is mentioned
in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant that on 26/05/2019, her
husband and in-laws beaten her and she alongwith her son were thrown out of the
matrimonial house. On the one hand, in her complaint, it is mentioned by the
complainant that she is residing at 145-A, Veena Enclave, Nangloi. On the other
hand, in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that on 26/05/2019, she
alongwith her son were thrown out of the matrimonial house. Aforesaid
averments as mentioned in the complaint and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are
contradictory in this regard.
On perusal of the aforesaid complaint dated 27/05/2019, statement
of the complainant u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet, it is clear that allegations
against the revisionists are general and omnibus in nature. There is no medical
document as well as documentary evidence on Trial Court record to substantiate
the allegations of the complainant against the revisionists for the offence
u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC. Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:27 –
0100
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 29/30
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
It is well settled law that charge cannot be framed only on the basis
of vague, general and omnibus allegations as well as unsubstantiated
assumptions and presumptions. For the purpose of framing charge against the
accused persons, there should be sufficient incriminating material available on
record. There is no incriminating/sufficient material available on Trial Court
record for the purpose of framing the charge against both the revisionists. Prima-
facie no case for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC is made out against the
revisionists/accused Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi.
15. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case
laws, the present revision petition of the revisionists is allowed. Accordingly,
impugned order dated 30/03/2024 qua revisionists/accused Rakesh Kumar and
Indu Devi is set-aside. Revisionists Rakesh Kumar and Indu Devi are discharged
for the offence u/s 498-A/406/34 IPC.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this
judgment.
Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.06.05
16:02:32 -
0100
Announced in the open Court
on 05/06/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CR No. 275/2024 Page No. 30/30