O P MALHOTRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks setting aside of the order dated 30th November, 2002 passed by Shri Yogesh Khanna, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in case FIR No. 87/1989 under Sections 498-A/304-B/120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Defence Colony, New Delhi. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined an application of Smt. Swarankanta and Om Prakash Malhotra, the present petitioners for dropping of proceedings against them. The main contention of the defence is that the charges against a similarly placed co-accused Smt. Neena Anand were dropped by the High Court vide an order dated 11th April, 2001 in Crl. Rev. P. 25/1994. An SLP was dismissed on 25th January, 2002. vide another order dated 25th January, 2002, in another SLP the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order in favour of Smt. Neena Anand.

(2.) The background is now necessary in order to understand the scope of the present petition. On 21st -22nd April, 1989 Police Station Defence Colony received an intimation from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital that Shalini Malhotra, wife of Praveen Malhotra had been admitted there with burn injuries of 50 per cent. A dying declaration was recorded by the SDM at 8.30 a.m. on 22nd April, 1989 in which she stated that when her husband was taking liquor, she got angry and poured liquor on herself and set herself on fire. Subsequently, on the same day at 4.20 p.m. she gave another statement which was recorded by A.S.I. Sukh Ram in which she stated that her mother-in-law and father-in-law namely the two petitioners herein and her sister-in-law Neena Anand had been harassing her and had been beating her and that her husband had been fighting with her after drinking. About the cause of death, she stated that on that day she picked up the whisky bottle after being fed up with the fighting and beating of her husband, poured the whisky on her and burnt herself She, however, also demanded action against the two petitioners and Neena Anand. Further, she stated that the petitioners and Neena never gave her enough food and taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. In yet another statement at 6.35 p.m. to the SDM, she again talked about her fights with her husband on account of his drinking habit. About the cause of death she stated that on that day she was abused, when she requested him to stop drinking and when the fight intensified she declared that she wanted to die as she had tolerated his tortures enough on which her husband told that if she did not know how to die, he could show the way to her. She went on to say that she threatened to die in the office where they were at that time and, thereafter, she poured the whisky from his bottle and lit herself with the match stick. She proceeded to say that on hearing her scream, the landlord of that building came to the door which her husband refused to open and thereupon she went to the door and let the landlord come in. She then said that since her mother-in-law was standing next to her when she was brought to the hospital, she gave the statement that she had caught fire while preparing food. On 29th April, 1989 Shalini passed away. The cause of death was septicaemia, 70 per cent ante mortem superficial and deep burns. The Doordarshan got an opportunity to interview the persons connected with the incident in which it elicited that Shalini had been tortured for bringing insufficient dowry. On conclusion of investigation, the husband of the deceased, namely, Praveen, the present petitioners as well as the sister-in-law were challanned for the offence under Sections 498-A/302/120-B of the IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge charged Praveen with offence under Section 302 of the IPC and under Section 304-B of the IPC and in the alternative under Section 306 of the IPC. The present petitioners who are parents of Praveen and Neena, the sister of Praveen were charged under Section 304-B and in the alternative under Section 306 of the IPC. All of them were also further charged under Section 498 A of the IPC.

(3.) The husband Praveen died during the pendency of the case. Thus, the principal accused has escaped justice from the Court. Of the other three, Neena Anand filed a revision petition in the High Court against the order of charge. The order dated 8th December, 1993 framing charge against the two petitionere and Neena Anand was set aside in Crl.Rev.P.25 /1994 by a judgment dated 11th April, 2001. The order dated 11th April, 2001 is brief and can be quoted here in extenso: