This judgment is useful to understand that for a trial to happen for a particular IPC section, the contents of FIR should prima-facie disclose a crime under that IPC section. In this particular judgment, it was held that the allegations in FIR constitute prima-facie a charge of IPC 498A, but there is no specific allegation to try the accused husband under IPC 406, so IPC 406 charge is dropped.
Important part of judgment below:
10. As far as charge U/s 406 IPC is concerned after perusal
of the complaint it is revealed that there is no specific allegations
of entrustment of istridhan articles by the complainant to the
accused, therefore prima facie offence of Criminal breach of trust
U/s 406 IPC is not made out against the accused Sonu Sharma.
Accordingly, accused Sonu Sharma stands discharged U/s 406
IPC.
Full judgment text below:
1/4 State Vs. Sonu Sharma
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN: MM
(MAHILA COURTS): ROHINI: DELHI.
State Vs. Sonu Sharma
FIR No. 7/12
PS – Narela
U/s 498A/406 IPC
14.11.2014
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused present alongwith counsel.
1. Vide this order, I would take my decision for framing of
charge.
2. I have carefully heard arguments on the point of charge.
3. Ld. Defence Counsel has considered that prima facie no
charge is made out against the accused Sonu Sharma (husband)
and sought discharge of the accused as allegations made against
him are general in nature. It is submitted that no specific
allegation has been made against the above mentioned accused
person and case is false and frivolous.
4. However, Ld. APP for State has argued that specific
allegations of dowry demand and the harassment are made out
against the accused person and charge be framed accordingly.
5. It is well settled that at the stage of framing the charge,
the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not
required to marshal the evidence and record a finding that the
2/4 State Vs. Sonu Sharma
materials collected by the prosecuting agency are sufficient or not
for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima
facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to
be framed.
6. For better appreciation of facts Section 498A IPC is
reproduced as under:-
“Section 498A IPC provides as under;
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband
of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty”
means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or heath (whether mental or
physical) of the woman: or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any un-lawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet her such demand. ”
7. The word 'harassment' in ordinary sense means to torment a
person subjecting him or her to constant interference or intimidation. If
such intimidation is done with a view to coerce any person and in this
3/4 State Vs. Sonu Sharma
case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the
unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to
“harassment” as contemplated by S.498A. Word 'Coercion' means
persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or
threats. Thus to constitute offence following ingredients/tests are
essential:
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically
or mentally through constant interference or intimidation.
(ii) Such act should be with a view to persuade or
compel her to do something which she is legally or
otherwise not expected to do by using force or
threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to
compel or force her or her relatives to fulfill unlawful
demands for any property or valuable security.
8. I have perused the record. Complainant had stated that
she got married with the accused Sonu Sharma on 15.10.07
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and soon after the
marriage accused started abusing the complainant physically and
mentally for not bringing sufficient dowry. There are allegations
of beating and taunting caused to complainant by the accused.
Complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home on
23.4.2009 and since then she is residing at her parental home. On
the basis of record, prima facie accused Sonu Sharma is liable to
be charged U/s 498A IPC as he has caused harassment to the
complainant for the sake of dowry demand.
4/4 State Vs. Sonu Sharma
9 . However, so far as Charge U/s 406 IPC is concerned, Section
405 IPC is reproduced as under:-
Section 405 Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being
in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses
or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of
law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied
which he has made touching the discharge of such trust,
or willfully suffer any other person so to do, commits
“criminal breach of trust”.
10. As far as charge U/s 406 IPC is concerned after perusal
of the complaint it is revealed that there is no specific allegations
of entrustment of istridhan articles by the complainant to the
accused, therefore prima facie offence of Criminal breach of trust
U/s 406 IPC is not made out against the accused Sonu Sharma.
Accordingly, accused Sonu Sharma stands discharged U/s 406
IPC.
11. Primafacie, an offence U/s 498A IPC is made out
against accused person namely Sonu Sharma (husband). Charge
be framed accordingly against above stated accused persons.
12. Put up for framing of charge on 22.01.2015.
(SHILPI JAIN)
MM/MAHILA COURT
ROHINI/DELHI.
14.11.2014