Sunday, Apr 28, 2024

24x7 Free Helpline For Men +91-888-2-498-498

Share
whatsapp

Court Name : Punjab And Haryana High Court

Law Point: 498A acquittal As Prosecution Failed to Prove the case

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revision No.900 of 2005 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.2.2010


Sudha
… Petitioner
Versus
Narender Nagpal and others
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Ashish Handa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.S.Sihota, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate for the respondents.
Sabina J.
Petitioner Sudha has filed this revision petition under Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the
judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1
st Class, Faridabad
acquitting the respondents of the offence under Section 498-A, 406 of the
Indian Penal Code ( in short ‘IPC’).
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2
to 3 of its judgment, are as under:-
“Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.10.97 a written
complaint made by Sudha was received by ASI Siri Bhagwan
wherein it was stated that she was married to Narender Nagpal on
8.12.89 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Immediately after
two months of the marriage, her husband started taunting her for
bringing insufficient dowry. Her husband asked her to bring
money for purchasing a car but knowing financial condition of
her father, the complainant refused to oblige her husband.
Thereafter, Narender Nagpal, husband of the complainant, Prem
Kumari, mother-in-law and Shiv Parkash, father-in-law of the
complainant started taunting her and beating her to pressurize her
to bring money for the car and in the alternative to bring money
which she had earned before marriage from her service. It was
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-10-2016 22:22:08 :::
Crl.Revision No.900 of 2005
made clear to the complainant that if she did not bring the money,
she would not be kept in her matrimonial house. When the
complainant was unable to take taunts and beatings any more, she
returned to her father’s house. Her father got a Panchayat
convened and with the intervention of the Panchayat, which
included Shiv Lal Bhatia and Krishan Gopal Bhatia, the
complainant returned to her matrimonial house. For a few days
behaviour of the in laws and husband of the complainant towards
the complainant was cordial. One day Anju, sister-in-law of the
complainant and Satish, her husband visited the matrimonial
house of the complainant. Satish was under the influence of liquor
at that time. He enquired from the father-in-law of the
complainant whether complainant had brought the car, at which
father-in law of the complainant replied in negative. The
complainant has alleged that from that day onwards she was again
illtreated and beaten. Thereafter, mother of the complainant
visited her house and on hearing the entire incident from her
daughter, she requested the mother-in-law of the complainant to
send the complainant with her as the complainant was unhappy.
Thereafter, father of the complainant enquired several times as to
when they would come to take the complainant back to her
matrimonial house but no one came from the side of her inlaws
and instead informed them they should first arrange for the
money and only then, they would take her back. Again several
respectables were collected where Narender Nagpal, husband of
the complainant apologized and took the complainant alongwith
him. It is further stated that for a few days complainant was kept
properly at her matrimonial house but subsequently when she
used to go for her job, the mother-in-law of the complainant
started locking the kitchen and room of the complainant. When
complainant returned and demanded the keys, she used to abuse
her and tell her that she did not bring anything from her father’s
house and was unnecessarily bothering them.
3. The complainant continued to tolerate taunts as she had
two children to look after. It is stated that mother-in-law illtreated
her children as well and on 7.10.97 Anju, sister-in-law of the
2
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-10-2016 22:22:09 :::
Crl.Revision No.900 of 2005
complainant and her husband Satish came to their house and
enquired from her husband and in laws as to why they had
continued to let her live in the house and why was she not thrown
out from the matrimonial house. It is alleged that on this her
husband Narender Nagpal gave her severe beatings and her in
laws pushed her out from the house and told her that she should
not return if she did not bring the car from her father’s house. It
was stated that her father had already given her following articles
in dowry:
1. Colour T.V.(BPL), 2, Fridge, 3, Sofa, 4 Dining Table
(with six Chairs), 5. Mixy, 6. Juicer, 7. Gas Kitchen, one
Cylender, 8. Dressing Table, 9. Inverter plus batter, 10.
Sewing Machine, 11. Three Almirahs, 12. Washign
Machine, 13, 10 Tola Gold, 14. Press, 15. Electric Hot
case, 16. 19 pairs of ladies clothes, 17. 15 pair of Gents
Clothes.
It was requested that necessary legal action be initiated
against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law
and her husband Satish and it was also requested that dowry
articles be restored to her. On the complaint , present case was
registered. Preliminary investigation was initiated by ASI Siri
Bhagwan. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
were recorded. Accused Narender Nagpal obtained anticipatory
bail from ld.Sessions Judge. Dowry articles were recovered.
Thereafter completion of other necessary formalities of
investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was prepared by
Inspector Javed Khan, SHO, P.S.Kotwali and challan was
presented in the court.”
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion
that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
The trial Court while dismissing the complaint has observed that
the respondent-Narender Nagpal had filed a petition for divorce under Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The said petition was decreed by the trial Court after
3
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-10-2016 22:22:09 :::
Crl.Revision No.900 of 2005
contest by the complainant-Sudha and the marriage between the parties was
dissolved. The plea of the respondent that the conduct of the complainant was
cruel towards her husband was accepted.
Learned trial Court further observed that there was no particular
evidence on record nor any independent corroboration was available on the
record regarding any physical cruelty inflicted on the complainant by the
accused. Hence, mere allegations of beatings were not sufficient to establish
any physical cruelty meted out to the accused. Learned trial Court has further
observed that the cruelty need not be only physical but could be mental also.
The complainant however, failed to establish that she had lost her seniority in
service as she was being taunted by the accused qua demand of dowry.
Learned trial Court further observed that the complainant had although taken
the plea that she was given Rs.300/- as monthly allowance out of her salary but
in her cross examination, she stated that her salary had always been deposited
in her account maintained with State Bank of India. The complainant had
failed to establish that she had been withdrawing her salary from her account
every month. Learned trial Court has further observed that Narender Nagpal
had remained admitted in Escorts Ltd. Medical Centre from 25.8.1993 to
28.8.1993 on account of alleged assault by Sunil, the brother of the
complainant. The complainant had failed to examine her brother with a view to
avoid his cross examination on this point. The expenses at the time of delivery
of both the children were borne by Narender Nagpal. The trial Court further
observed that the complainant had alleged that in the year 1997, her husband
lost his job and demanded money for repayment of loan taken by him for
purchase of Maruti car. The said demand cannot be termed as a dowry of
demand. The learned trial Court has further observed that the allegations
against the parents in law were vague. Moreover, the complainant admitted
4
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-10-2016 22:22:09 :::
Crl.Revision No.900 of 2005
that two rooms had been got constructed by her parents in law on the first floor
and she was residing with her husband in the said rooms.
Learned trial Court further observed that demand of car as dowry
has not been established as Narender Nagpal had purchased the car in the year
1997 by raising a loan. Learned trial Court further observed that admittedly
the marriage of the complainant was performed by way of simple ceremony.
The guests from the complainant side were more than double of the guests
from the side of the accused. The learned trial Court further observed that
accused Narender Nagpal had got a life insurance policy and had nominated
the complainant his wife as a nominee.
Thus, the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the present
case rightly held that the complainant had failed to prove her case. The reasons
given by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents are sound reasons and
warrant no interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
[ Sabina ]
Judge
09.02.2010
sd
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 12-10-2016 22:22:09 :::

Quick Links
Tags
Child Custody
IPC 302
406
41a
Stay by Appellate Court
prohibition
CrPC 127
False affidavit
IPC 304
Dowry
CrPC 313
IPC 375
unclean hands
Mutual Consent Divorce
IPC 506
Vague Allegations
498a
CrPC 340
clubbing all cases in single court
HMA 25
RCR
IPC
CrPC 128
Quash
CrPC 468
Electronic evidence
Judicial Custody
323
Caveat
False Allegations
NCRB
CrPC 161
IPC 334
Car to husband
IPC 497
156(3)
No Proper Source of funds of dowry.
CrPC 319
FIR
No relief to people who come to courts with unclean hands
306
Cooling period
HMA-24
CrPC 294
HMA
Maintenance dismissed
Bail
Quashing 498a
Maintenance
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC
Police Custody
IPC 376
No Independent witness examined
Section 376
Diet Money
No maintenance to deserting wife
IPC 323
Wife earning
Divorce
Passport
False Case
IndianPenalCode
CrPC 126
Dowry Death
CrPC 41
504
IPC 406
IPC 354
Legal Terrorism
Dowry Misuse
EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
DP Act
RTI
Passport
CrPC 340 - Perjury
DV-Act
No neighbor examined.
322

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law related blogs and websites. We, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, LawOctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc. Many of the judgements are also taken from the websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Copyright © 2019-20 SIF Chandigarh. All Rights Reserved