DEVI DUTT MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.1997, passed by the court of Ms.Rekha Sharma, ASJ, Delhi, holding that prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC is made out against Devi Dutt Malhotra, (petitioner No.l - father-in-law) and under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC against Pramod Kumar, (petitioner No.2 - husband), of the deceased.

(2.) Facts in brief are that petitioner No.2 is son of petitioner No.l; that the deceased (Meenu) was married to him at Amritsar; after the marriage they started living in Delhi. On 26.6.1994 she was found dead and her body was found hanging from the ceiling fan, by their landlady (Kamlesh). Parents of the deceased were informed. Father of deceased (Satpal) made a statement before the S.D.M., stating that his daughter (Meenu) was married with Pramod Kumar on 20,9.91, In the marriage he had given the dowry to the best of his capacity. In between. Pramod asked for Rs.40,000.00, which he had given after raising a loan and he was paying the interest thereon. On 18.6-1994 he came to Delhi to see his daughter. She told him that her husband was in bad habit of gambling and whenever she tries to persuade him not to do so, she was given beating. He wanted to take his daughter alongwith him but Pramod Kumar refused. He wend back. After receiving the information about the death of his daughter he came to Delhi. He felt that his daughter was first beaten up and thereafter hanged on the fan. Earlier when he alongwith his wife have stayed with his daughter, during that period she was also beaten up by her husband and they were insulted and money was also demanded. After he had gone from Delhi his son-in-law continued to harass his daughter and demanding dowry. He identified the dead body of his daughter. This statement was read over to him and he accepted the same to be correct. Thereafter, it is recorded that his "Samdhi D.D. Malhotra (petitioner No.I), also used to harass my daughter, used to taunt her, saying that his house is not a SARAI, bring dowry from your parents". On the basis of this statement, above noted case was registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that he has instructions not to press the petition of petitioner No.2 Parmod Kumar (husband of deceased), who has been charged under Sections 304B/498A IPC. He would press the petition only of petitioner No.1, Devi Dutt Malhotra, under Section 498A IPC. On behalf of petitioner No.1 he argued that admittedly, he was living at Amritsar (Punjab), that the allegation against him in FIR to the effect that he used to say to the deceased "that his house is not a sarai" was added subsequently; he was seen for the first time in Delhi after the death of Meenu, as per the statement of land lady Kamlesh. He argued that petitioner No.1 is a sick and infirm person and is suffering from acute cardiac problem and the charge against him is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Ramchandra Vs. State of M.P. 2001(3) Crimes SC 166. Learned APP for the State referring to the statements of father, mother and brother of the deceased argued to the contrary. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (i) Minna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. 2001 (8) SC 172, (ii) State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari & Ors, 2000(1) Crimes 165 (SC), (iii) Ram Kumar Laharia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 2001 1AD(Cr.) S.C. 54, (iv) Om Wati V. State 2001 Supreme Court Cases(Cri) 685.