Judgement further down.
June 08, 2010
New Delhi, Even distant relatives living together in urban villages can be charged under the Domestic Violence Act. The Delhi High Court gave the verdict in an appeal filed against a trial court judgement.
The High Court also ordered 15 persons to be charged with harassing the daughter-in-law of the family for dowry.
In July 2008, the trial court had acquitted eight persons of all offences in a domestic violence case filed by Sunita (name changed).
The 25-year-old woman had lodged an FIR with the Women Cell in May 2004 against her husband, 11 of her in-laws and three other relatives accusing them of harassing her for dowry.
Sunita and the accused were all living as a joint family in Jaffar-Kalan village in southwest Delhi.
The trial court, in its judgement, had excused eight of the family, saying the allegation against distant relatives were vague, as they were not immediate members of the family, and did not attract prosecution.
Sunita’s counsel Vijay Aggarwal filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court against the trial court order, which had refused to frame charges against the in-laws.
Aggarwal contended: “All these 15 family members are living together in one single house. They tortured Sunita at various point in time.”
The high court upheld his contention that in the present case distant relatives are effective members of family.
Justice Sanjeev Khanna said, “Though distant relatives of the husband have been roped in, this has to be viewed in the context that the family members lived in villages within National Capital Region of Delhi.”
Stating that distant relatives become a party to Domestic Violence Act, the court said that the prevalent social milieu in an urban village shows constant interaction between all family members.
full text @
http://lobis.%20nic.in/dhc/%20SKN/judgement/%2024-04-2010/%20SKN22042010CRLR6%20232008.pdf
>>>>>
full text of the order
CRL.REV.P. 623/2008
$~21
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 623/2008
LALITA YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.D. Mehra, Advocate with Mr.
Rahul Mehra, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta & Ms. Fizani
Hussain, APP for the State.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Pramod Kr. Dubey, Sri Singh & Mr.
Vivek Jain, Advocates for respondents
no. 2 to 9.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 22.04.2010
The matter has been heard at length. The petitioner in ground 7 (ii) has
specifically quoted the averments and allegations made in the charge-sheet against
the respondents who have been discharged. The said allegations have been
examined and considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the allegations against
Hukam Singh & Priyavarat are too general and not specific and states that he
is not pressing the present revision petition against them.
However, allegations made against Sukhma Devi, Tek Chand, Jai Kishan,
Magan, Jagram @ Jagbir & Vijay are in detail and specific. It may be relevant to
state here that these persons had earlier also filed a revision petition before this
court for quashing of FIR No. 177/2004, under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian
Penal Code and all consequential proceedings. One of the contention raised in the
writ petition was that the said persons are distant relatives and not members of
the immediate family. Learned single Judge in his order dated 28.02.2008 did not
accept and had rejected the said contention after making reference to the FIR and
the charge-sheet. It was observed that there were specific allegations and not mere
casual or general allegations. Court also noticed that though, distant relatives of
the husband had been roped in, but this had to be viewed in the context
that the CRL.REV.P. 623/2008
family members lived in villages within the National Capital Region of Delhi and
the prevalent social milieu in that setting facilitates constant interaction between
them. Learned Judge while dismissing the petition had stated that the observations
made in the order would not influence the trial court at any of the subsequent
stages and it was stated that parties would be entitled to raise all contentions at the
time of arguments on charge.
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order dated 19.07.2008
has discharged the said private respondents without discussing and meeting with
the requirements of Section 239 & 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which
specifically requires that if an accused is discharged, reasons for the same shall be
recorded. As noticed above, there are specific allegations against the private
respondents in the charge-sheet. At this stage, it is not possible to come to a
conclusion or decide whether these allegations are false or correct. This requires
evidence. At this stage only a prima facie view is to be taken.
In these circumstances, impugned order dated 19.07.2008 discharging
Sukhma Devi, Tek Chand, Jai Kishan, Jagram @ Jagbir and Vijay are set-aside.
The learned trial court will frame charges on the basis of specific
allegations
against the said persons after examining the contentions of the parties. As
conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present revision petition
against Hukum Singh and Priyavarat is dismissed. Petition is disposed of.
Trial court record will be sent back.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 22, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment