SHIPALI SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dtd. 7/12/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Crl. Rev. No.146/2012, whereby, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the discharge of respondent No.2, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had lodged an FIR No.53/2008 against her husband and other family members including respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The police registered offences under Ss. 498A/34 of the IPC against the husband of the petitioner and her in-laws. The police, after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against all the accused persons.

(3.) On 25/8/2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate heard the parties on charge. After perusal of the material available on record, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not find any specific allegation of harassment or demand of dowry against respondent No.2/brother-in-law of the petitioner. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate opined that the allegations were very vague and do not amount to cruelty or harassment under Sec. 498A of the IPC. No prima facie case was made out and, therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged respondent No.2 from charges under Sec. 498A/34 IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, however, framed charges against all other accused persons. The petitioner, therefore, preferred revision under Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned revisional court, while placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. 1979 3 SCC 4, Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra 2002 2 SCC 135 and Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2010 9 SCC 368, has held that the alleged act of the respondent No.2 does not amount to cruelty, as per explanation (a) and (b) of Sec. 498A of IPC and, therefore, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. In other words, the discharge of Respondent No.2 was confirmed by the learned revisional court.