VARUN SHARMA Vs. STATE NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT (respondent No. 2) is husband of respondent No. 3. Petitioner is brother-in-law (wife's husband) of respondent No. 2. In the month of April, 1997, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 met each other in a train while travelling from Delhi to Hyderabad. They became friends. They continued to meet thereafter. With the passage of time love blossomed between them. Ultimately, they got married on 28th November, 1997 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Rathkhana, Bikaner according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It appears that after the marriage their relations became estranged. Respondent No. 2, inter alia, alleged that respondent No. 3 had concealed her real age, her marital status and the fact that she was having two children out of her previous wedlock with one Wasif Khalil. She had also concealed that at the time of marriage with Wasif Khalil she had embraced Islam. Respondent No. 3 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of nullity under Sections 5 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the month of November, 2000.

(2.) ON 16th September, 2000, that is, few months prior to filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (ACMM), praying therein that petitioner and respondent No.3 be summoned tried and punished for the offences under Sections 406/415/419/420/463/468/469/471 IPC. Pursuant to the directions of the court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., FIR No. 690/2000 under Sections 406/419/420 IPC has been registered at Police Station Kalkaji. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who took cognizance of the offences and summoned the petitioner and respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23rd August, 2002. Petitioner filed an application seeking his discharge. This application was allowed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 11th April, 2005. Petitioner was discharged. Respondent No. 1 (State) preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 68/2006 before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi against the discharge of petitioner. By the order impugned in this petition, Revision Petition has been allowed. Additional Sessions Judge has held that a, prima facie, case was made against the petitioner for having committed offence under Sections 406 read with Section 120-B IPC and he be charged accordingly by the Trial Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 2 has next contended that application of the petitioner seeking his discharge was disposed of by the Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 11th April, 2005. In the Revision filed by the State this order has been set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed the Trial Court to frame charge against the petitioner under Section 406 read with Section 120-B IPC. Charge has already been framed by the Trial Court. Thus, present petition assailing the order of Additional Sessions Judge has become infructuous. Reliance has been placed on Uma Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar 2010 (9) SCC 479. I do not find any force in this contention of learned counsel either. It is not the case that after setting aside the order of the Trial Court, Additional Sessions Judge has remanded the case back to the Trial Court for considering the matter afresh on charge. Additional Sessions Judge has returned a categorical finding that a, prima facie, case was made out against the petitioner under Section 406 read with Section 120-B IPC and the charge be framed against him. Metropolitan Magistrate has framed charge pursuant to this order. Petitioner cannot be made remediless against the order on charge. Present petition challenging the framing of charge, thus, is maintainable. Uma Shankar Singh's case (supra) is in the context of different facts and is not applicable to the facts of the present case.