Prima-facie IPC 406 charge dropped but 498A charge framed against accused husband – Delhi MM court

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