SANDHYA TRIPATHI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 23 rd February, 2011 passed by the learned Trial Court directing and framing of charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC and the alternative charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the sisters-in-law of the deceased Vinita @ Bubbly and Petitioner No. 2 is the husband of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are residing at Lucknow and had no concern with the matrimonial home of the deceased. Petitioner No. 3 is the unmarried sister-in-law of the deceased, who was employed and had left for the work in the garments factory when the alleged incident took place. In view of the absence of the Petitioners at the time of alleged incident, no charge sheet was filed against them however, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoned them for offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed and framed the charge by the impugned order. There is no material on the basis of which the charge could be framed against the Petitioners. On 31 st July, 2009, the grandfather of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 suffered a heart attack due to which the entire family was at the hospital and on 1 st August, 2009 the deceased committed suicide when Petitioner No. 3 had gone to her work place. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not in Delhi and all other members of the family were at the hospital. The FIR was registered belatedly on the statement of the father of deceased made on 3 rd August, 2009, which does not disclose any offence against them. Even taking the facts on their face value, no case for attracting criminal liability in terms of Section 34 IPC is made out. There is no evidence that the Petitioners acted in furtherance of their common intention with the other co-accused. Though the parties were married on 12 th May, 2007 however, the Gauna was performed on 28 th April, 2008. Thereafter, again the deceased went to her parental home and returned only in June 2009. Thus the deceased hardly lived in her matrimonial home. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the alleged incident took place on 1 st August, 2009, that is, within seven years from the date of marriage. The statements of the father and the uncles of the deceased were recorded, who stated that there was a continuous demand of a car. It is further stated that the factum of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 living in Lucknow and Petitioner No.3, the unmarried sister-in-law, having gone for work had been verified and that is why no charge sheet was filed against them. However, from the statements of the family members of the deceased, allegations of the offences for which charges have been framed are substantiated.