KAMAL PASRICHA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Charges framed on 26-11-1997 for the offences under Section 304B/34, IPC and under Section 498A/34, IPC are sought to be revised by the petitioners by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as T1the Code).

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated is, that Monika Pasricha wife of Kamal Pasricha was married on 26-10-1990; that this marriage was a love marriage but was later on regularized; that after 2-3 months of marriage, the father-in-law M.L. Pasricha mother-in-law Veena Pasricha, brother-in-law Vineet and husband Kamal Pasricha started harassing Monika; that these people had been taking of the household work from Monika to such an extent that she was not able to do it physically and Monika used to be told bitter words; that these people had been asking Monika to bring Rs. 50,000/- for starting their own business and that, Monika parents had given them the money; that business did not run and Monika was again subjected to beatings; that the jewellery which Monika had got in marriage was also retained by these people and did not return; that on being tired she had been residing at her parental house for the last one and half years along with her daughter aged four years; that a divorce case is also going on with the husband; that she had friendship with one girl Upasana who has been staying as a tenant in her parental house; that on 1-10-1995, Upasana had demanded a Saree of Monika's mother for going to duty, which was taken back by Manoj; that on 3-10-1995 there was some hot discussion between Monikas mother and Upasana and when Monika talked to her mother on this then inmates of the house starting talking filthy and gave beating to Monika; that her father told Monika that she is a call-girl and was given abuses in most filthy language, which she could not explain; that Monika is not in good terms with her mother and sisters; that due to this quarrel she had been compelled to go to the kitchen and gas was ignited by the gas lighter and she put her shirt into the fire. It is further stated that she was very much tired by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband and other family members.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record framed the charge under Sections 304B/498A/34. IPC against all the accused persons, It is the framing of charge under Section 227 of the Code, which is sought to be revised in this petition.