Applicability of section 340 of CrPC, and 194 of IPC

This Punjab and Haryana High court  judgment says that if an application under CrPC 340 is moved (for filing false affidavit in this case), then the court must undertake the procedure for CrPC 340 in disposing that application.  It was not correct on part of trial court to refer cursorily to the mentioned fact of false affidavit in judgment, and thus dismissing the CrPC 340 application by being silent on the issue.

So the takeaway for people facing false 498a and maintenance cases is to go for perjury application under CrPC 340 if you have good evidence like false affidavit, wrongly mentioned fact about not-working, wrong salary mentioned etc.

CHANDIGARH                               CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25-1-2010

Sunny Bhumbla ………Appellant Vs

Shashi ………Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008 Annexure P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights leaving the parties to bear their own costs and rejected the application moved under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted with great eloquence that after the respondent admitted in her cross-examination about her employment, salary and inheritance

of the landed property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated 27.8.2008 solemnly affirming therein that she had inadvertently not mentioned about the source of income as well as employment in the earlier affidavit dated 14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the respondent for submitting a

false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 before the learned trial Court, in order to get more maintenance from the appellant. The learned trial Court had assured the appellant that his said application shall be decided alongwith the main case. While deciding the main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that “in support of her claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the

respondent/applicant had made certain assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed

by the petitioner on 3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways

in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent.”

It is further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked

the fact that the respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial

proceedings. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating,

forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the

learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read

with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.

CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have given a deep and thoughtful

consideration to these submissions.

A careful perusal of the observations rendered by the learned trial

Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment would reveal that there is

not even a shred of reference to the application moved under Section 195 read

with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons have been apportioned

for not initiating the action on the basis of the alleged affidavit. The said

application having been moved under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be disposed of separately. It was not desirable on the part of the learned trial Court to decide the said application in a slip shod manner by making mere passing reference to the alleged affidavit. In the application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit, the inquiry has to be held whereas in the present one, the impugned order is

absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry was held. There is specific

procedure which is to be followed while disposing of an application moved under

Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal

Procedure Code reads as under:-

“340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195–(1) When, upon an

application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of the opinion

that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made

into any offence referred to to in cl (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195,

which appears to have been committed in or in relation to to a proceeding in

that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a document produced or

given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4

such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.

(a) record a finding to that effect.

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before

such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court

thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate;

and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such

Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an

offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under

sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the

making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court

is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Sec.195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed (a)

where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court

as the Court may appoint.

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court,

and            (4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in CRA No.

197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 5 Sec.195.”

A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned

trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The

approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is depreciable.

The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons. In consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court is directed to decide the application under discussion in accordance with law. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(HARBANS LAL)

JUDGE

January 25, 2010

Quashing a False 498a FIR - tips and tricks !

Quashing a False 498a FIR - tips and tricks !

Quashing of FIR is a tough matter ! Courts generally are reluctant to interfere at the stage of investigation and only very strong grounds + persuasive arguments can make a bench sit up and taking a 482 matter seriously. FIR's can be quashed if they an abuse of process of law/prima facie don't disclose any offence or are inherently improbable - If you are thinking about quashing of FIR u/s 498a/406. These are the grounds/list of judgments of quashing that would help bolster your plea :

GROUNDS FOR QUASHING IN A 498a/406/34 IPC MATTER

• BECAUSE Section 482 of the Cr.PC categorically saves the inherent power of High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case it is pertinent in the ends of justice and to prevent an abuse of the process of law that the impugned FIR be quashed.

• BECAUSE the High Court is empowered to quash a criminal proceeding where it is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The Courts are also empowered to quash in case where the allegations in the FIR even if taken at their face value do not satisfy the ingredients of offence complained therein. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604).

• Reliance in this regard is placed on the landmark decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. V. State of UP (Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 10547/2010) Decided on 17.10.2012, wherein the court categorically observed that “mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.”

The Hon’ble Court further went on to hold “20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.”

Court further held “if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law”.

*BECAUSE the Courts at X place have no jurisdiction as per the mandate of S.177 CrpC. Reliance in this regard is placed on following decisions :-

• Y.Abraham Ajith V. Inspector of Police [(2004) SCC (Cri.) 2134]. In this case, the Madras High Court refused to interfere under Section 482 CrPC when the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to take cognizance of the offence was raised. This Court did not endorse the approach of the High Court for not recording the finding on the question of jurisdiction. On reading the allegations in the complaint, the Court came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore the Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai could not have taken cognizance and issued summons. On this ground, the criminal proceedings were quashed and the complaint was directed to be returned to the respondent who was given liberty to file the same in an appropriate court. That was also a case of complaint for an offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC filed by the wife against the appellant therein.

• Delhi High Court in Niraj Trivedi v. State of Bihar [ WP’s - Crl. ] 235 & 415/04 Decided on 4.1.08, The Delhi High Court categorically held “Crime cannot be registered on the basis of residence of the complainant, or the effect of the crime…..but only at the place of crime”. Justice S.N Dhingra directed the Patna Police to transfer the FIR No. 0188/02 PS Digh, Patna, Bihar to their counterpart in Delhi. As no part of the alleged offence was committed in Patna and all allegations of atrocity were restricted to Delhi.

• Delhi High Court in Rajesh Dhingra & Ors./State of Rajasthan WP (Crl.) No.976/03 Quashed on.22.10.07 FIR No.98/2003 U/s.498 AIPC of PS. Mahila Thana, Alwar Gate Ajmer(Rajasthan). The Court held that no part of the offence as alleged in FIR registered at Police Station Ajmer had been committed within the jurisdiction of PS Mahila Thana Alwar Gate, Ajmer, Rajasthan. The wife has misused the process of law. FIR Quashed.

• Delhi High Court in Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Another vs. State and Another HON'BLE JUSTICE S.N. DHINGRA DHC - 26/02/2007 CASE NO: Crl.M.C. 1216-17 of 2006, held that the Courts have been allowing quashing of proceedings under Section 498A /406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 because in such cases the FIRs are result of matrimonial discord and more often the effort of the Court is that either the parties should settle for a compromise for living together or they should part their company peacefully, so that, there is peace and amity in the society. In cases resulting from matrimonial discord, the Court is not dealing with criminal but dealing with broken marriages and broken homes where resort is more often made to Sections 498A/406 Indian Penal Code.

• BECAUSE the present FIR has been lodged to wreak personal vendetta and as a counter blast to the divorce/RCR case filed by the husband.

Reliance is placed on the landmark decision on Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, JT 2005(6) 26 observed as : “The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner that many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.

• BECAUSE recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand - AIR 2010 SC 3363 - their lordships Hon’ble J. DALVEER BHANDARI & K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ while directing the Law Commission to have a relook at the provisions, went on to hold : “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

33.…The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

Anti-Male Bias Increasingly Pervades Our Culture

Delhi HC Strikes Down Husband’s FIR Against Wife For Giving Dowry. Sec 3 DP Act Precautions Needed Before

Filing FIR Against Wife – Hy Wife Cannot Be / MAY Not Be Prosecuted … IS This A Case Of Anti Male Bias In Society Still Affecting Honest Law Abiding Citizens Of This Country

*** judgement ***

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIJudgment reserved on: September 30, 2010
Judgment delivered on: October 20, 2010
+ W.P.(CRL.) NO. 501/2010 & CRL.M.A. 3921/2010(stay)
POOJA SAXENA…. PETITIONER
Through: Mr.V ijay Aggarwal with Mr.Rakesh Mukhija and Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate s.
Versus
STATE & ANOTHER…..RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State with Mr.Roshan Kumar, Advocate with I.O. S.I. Mr.Prabhanshu, P.S. Roop Nagar.
Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocate for R.2 /Sameer Saxena.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.
1. Pooja Saxena, the petitioner herein, vide instant writ petition under Article s 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking direction for quashing of the order of learned ACMM dated 10. 0 3.2010 as well as FIR No.59/2010 dated 22. 0 3.2010 registered at P.S. Roop Nagar pursu ant to the af oresaid order of learned ACMM.
2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Pooja Saxena filed a complaint of dowry demand and harassment against her husband (respondent No.2) with CAW Cell and on t he basis of the said complaint, after preliminary inquiry and on the recommendation of the senior police off icer, an FIR No.232/2009 under Section s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against respondent No.2 Sameer Saxena and others at P.S. Roo p Nagar.

3. Petitioner Pooja Saxena in her above referred complaint alleged that at the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient amount of cash and valuable articles including jewellery, Swift car, Sony TV, washing machine, double bed and gift items to r espondent No.2 and his relatives. It was also alleged in the complaint that at the time of her engagement ceremony on 20.08.2006, father of respondent No.2 raised a demand for a Sony TV besides cash /gifts for the relatives as also gold ornaments, diamond jewellery and clothes etc. for the sister -in -law of the respondent as also her two daughters. Father of the petitioner fulfilled the said demand s but the father -in -law of the petitioner was not satisfied and he raise d a demand for a car of a prestigious brand or in the alternative asked for a deposit of ` 5 lakhs as a corpus to enable them to purchase a car. He suggested that the car should be purchased in the name of the petitioner, failing which he would not go on with the marriage which may cause harassment to the parents of the petitioner and create difficulty in finding a match for the marriage of the younger sister of the petitioner
rest of the judgement enclosed as file in link below

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU ASJ-II, NORTH WEST DISTT. ROHINI: DELHI

Crl. Revision No. 354/09

Uma Devi

W/o Sh. Sunil Garg,

D/o Sh. Jai Kumar,

R/o C-451/9, Chandra Quarters, Rampura, Delhi-35.

Presently residing at T/367/29, Onkar Nagar-B, Tri Nagar, Delhi-35.

VERSUS

1. Sunil Garg S/o Sh. S. C. Garg,

R/o 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34.

Address given in the complaint E-1/21, Phase-I, Budh Vihar, Delhi.

2. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Date of institution :  24.12.2009

Arguments heard on : 13.05.2010

Date of final order :  02.06.2010

O R D E R

This revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist/ petitioner Uma Devi the estranged wife of the respondent no.1, against the order of Ld. MM dated 21.10.2009 by way of which Ld. MM directed the SHO PS Maurya Enclave to conduct investigation on the allegations made in the complaint as they attracted the commission of cognizable offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The facts leading to the filing of the revision are briefly stated as under:

A complaint was made by the petitioner/ revisionist regarding harassment by the respondent and his family on account of dowry demand, on the basis of which FIR No. 218/09 was registered at Police Station Keshavpuram. In the said complaint it was alleged by the petitioner/ revisionist that she was married to respondent no.1 on 21.4.2008 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Shubham Vatika, Mundka, Delhi. As per the allegations prior to the marriage Roka ceremony had taken place on 28.1.2008 and God-Bharai ceremony was conducted on 15.4.2008 at Meri-Maker Banquet Hall, Wazirpur, Delhi and during the Roka and God-Bharai ceremonies the father of respondent no.1 had spoken to her father regarding the expenses to be incurred on the marriage and had demanded that Rs.15 to 16 lacs should be spent on the marriage and 25% to 30 % more was to be spent on the amount settled. It is also alleged by the petitioner/ present revisionist that after the marriage she was being harassed on account of insufficient dowry and demands were made by her in- laws on account of which a detail complaint was filed by the revisionist with the CAW Cell on 16.1.2009, which was after the almost 8 to 9 months of marriage. It was further alleged that respondent no.1 and his parents are influential people and despite her complaint, except registration of the FIR No. 218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Keshavpuram, neither any dowry articles have been returned nor any arrest has been made.

After the registration of the above FIR the respondent no.1 who is the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM alleging that the complaint of the present petitioner itself reflected that offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have been committed. It was alleged by the respondent no.1 that since the petitioner before this court has already alleged in her complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered, that pursuant to the demand by the family of the respondent, the father of the petitioner fulfilled their demands.

The Ld. MM taking into account the aforesaid directed the investigations and now being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this court alleging that in the complaint filed by the respondent u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C, he had intentionally given wrong address as L-425, Shakarpur Colony, New Delhi-34 whereas he is in-fact residing with his parents at 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and now in the complaint on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, he has given another false address i.e. E- 1/21, Phase-I, Budh Vihar, Delhi.

The Revisionist has also assailed the order of Ld. MM on the ground that it is against the law and facts. It is pleaded that the revisionist was residing earlier at Rampura, and now at Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar and the petitioner after her marriage had resided with respondent no. 1 and her in-laws at 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and no incident has happened within the jurisdiction of PS Maurya Enclave and the respondent no.1 has

intentionally mentioned the police station Maurya Enclave in his complaint and the order passed on the said complaint is having no territorial jurisdiction. It is alleged that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the false facts as a counter blast and as such is liable to he set aside. It is pleaded that the respondent no.1 and his relatives have been causing mental and physical harassment to her in respect of which FIR No.218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Keshav Puram has been registered. It is further pleaded that the offences for which directions have been given are not made out against her and her relations and as such the impugned order may be set aside as no specialized investigation is required to prove the allegations for commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Notice was issued to the respondents but no reply has been filed. The trial court record has been called which I have duly perused. I have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of the revisionist and the authorities relied upon by the parties, which are as under:

1. Sabir Vs. Jaswant and Others (2003) Vol. (1) RCR (Criminal) 479.

2. Ajai Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2001 (Vol. I) RCR (Criminal) 83.

3. Pawan Verma Vs. SHO PS Model Town & Ors. 2009 (Vol. 2) JCC 1000, Delhi High Court.

4. Kalia Prem Rattan Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 (Vol.1), RCR (Criminal) 769 (Punjab & Haryana High Court).

5.Trisuns Chemicals Industry Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal and Others, (1999) Vol. 8, SCC, 686.

6. Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007) DMC 545.

7. Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001, AIR, SCW 189.

Before proceeding further to decide the present revision on merits, it is necessary to observe that the order of Ld. Magistrate directing the police to investigate on the basis of the allegations made in a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can always be challenged in revision and therefore, the present revision petition is maintainable against the order of the Ld. MM.

The first challenge to the impugned order is on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. MM to entertain the complaint. In this regard it may be observed that the present revision is the outcome of the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 21.10.2009 on a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. On that aspect it is necessary to observe that provisions of Sections 190, 193, 179, 177 Cr. PC, are very clear. The arguments that the Ld. Magistrate taking cognizance should have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well, is on the face of it erroneous. The provisions of Section 177 and Section 179 Cr.PC do not restrict the power of any court of Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and the only restriction contained in Section 190 Cr. PC is that the power to take cognizance is subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Any Metropolitan Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of any offence, no matter whether the offence has been committed within his territorial jurisdiction or not. There is nothing in Chapter-IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impair the power of Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence on the strength of any territorial jurisdiction. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction would become relevant only when the question of inquiry or trial arises. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the Ld. Trial Court being the Metropolitan Magistrate, has power to take cognizance of the offence even if the offence was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction becomes relevant only after during the post cognizance stage.

Before proceeding further to discuss the validity of the impugned order on merits, it is necessary to discuss the existing statutory law. Dowry Prohibition Act, is a welfare legislation which aims at curtailing and abolishing the vice of dowry. Whenever the valuable security has been given as a consideration for marriage or for continuation of marriage for a good and happy relationship, then under such circumstances an act of giving or taking of valuable securities are both covered by the Act. (Ref.: Inder Sen Vs. Sinte, 1988, Criminal Law Journal, 1116). Dowry is a two way traffic and unless there is a giver there can be no taker and it is for this reason that in order to eliminate this evil both the giver and taker have been made liable (Under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) apart from the fact that even demand for dowry made is punishable (Under Section 4 of the Act). In a case where it is evident that there was a demand of dowry even before the marriage and pursuant to such demand, dowry was given as consideration of marriage, all persons making such demand for dowry and those giving valuable security as a consideration for marriage or for its continuance as well as those receiving this valuable security would be guilty under this Act. It is not possible to leave one and book another. Therefore, it is only that interpretation which is in-consonance with the object sought to be attained by the act that has to be adopted and nothing else would suffice.

Numerous social welfare legislations have been enacted in favour of women and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is one such legislation denouncing traditions and customary practices derogatory to women. It is unfortunate that this legislation has been reduced to a mere paper tiger and what is more unfortunate is the fact that it is none else but the family of the women (involved in the marriage) who is responsible for non accomplishment of this legislation. Dowry is shamelessly demanded, given and received under the pretext of social compulsions. It is time that this Social Welfare legislation (Dowry Prohibition Act) is ruthlessly implemented and none is permitted to take the shield of social compulsions. This has become all the more necessary in order to check the misuse and abuse of Special Laws.  It has been observed that a large number of customary gifts are exchanged at the time of marriage. These gifts fall outside the purview of dowry in case if they are Istridhan and find a mention in the list prepared and signed by both the parties (the family of the girl and boy) as required under the Dowry Prohibition Rules. However, expensive gifts given to relatives which do not fall within the definition of Istridhan are taxable in the hands of the recipient, in case if the value of the gift which would be a transfer for inadequate consideration exceeds the statutory limit as provided under the Income Tax Act. Also, in case of gift of any immovable property, the same would require a compulsory registration. It is, therefore, necessary for the courts of law to ensure that due inquiry and investigations are got conducted not only with regard to the source of income of the person giving dowry but also as to whether these transactions are duly reflected in the Wealth Tax returns of both the Donor and the Donee. Further, in case if it is established that expensive gifts (i.e. transfer for inadequate consideration) were given to relatives (beyond the stipulated limit), the competent authority be informed so as to ensure a proper fiscal benefit to the government by way of tax   from recipient of such a gift.

Coming now to the ground raised by the Revisionist that the order of the Ld. MM is against the law and facts. I may observe that the case of the present petitioner is that there was a demand of dowry by the respondent no.1 and his family even prior to her marriage. It is evident from the pleadings of the petitioner and even in her revision petition before this court she has alleged that there were discussions between her father and father of the respondent no.1 between the roka and godbharai ceremonies, wherein certain demands were made. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations FIR No.218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Keshav Puram has already been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner against respondent no.1 and his family, which is under investigation. While the said investigations were pending, the respondent against whom allegations have been made by the petitioner in the main FIR, approached the court in the complaint under Section 156 (3) for proceedings against the present petitioner and her family for the various offences committed by him under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Ld. MM vide the impugned order dated 21.10.09 directed the SHO concerned to carry out investigation into the allegations made which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.

In the present case, on the basis of the complaint given by the present petitioner, an FIR bearing No. 218/09, PS Keshav Puram had already been registered. Another complaint has now been given by the accused husband of petitioner for registration of counter FIR against the family of the petitioner who are alleged to have given dowry pursuant to the demand raised by the family of the husband even before the marriage. This being so, it is not possible for the Ld. Magistrate under the given circumstances to make inquiries with regard to the correctness of the allegations regarding giving or taking of dowry which can only be got inquired into and investigated by the investigating agency which is already investigating the complaint given by the present petitioner alleging harassment on account of insufficient dowry on the basis of which the FIR has been already registered.

Directions of the High Court are the laws declared binding all subordinate courts. While dealing with a similar case Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Dhingra of the Delhi High Court has in the case of Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007) DMC 545, observed that Section 3 of the Act lays down a punishment for giving and taking dowry and therefore not only is it necessary for the courts to insist upon the compliance of the rules framed under the Act and draw adverse inference where these rules are not followed, but also to ensure that due inquiry and investigations are got conducted in all such cases which come before it with allegations of demand of dowry……. Whenever it is noticed that unaccounted cash amounts or expensive gifts are given at the time of marriage as consideration there of, then it is necessary for the courts of the Ld. Magistrates to bring these facts to the notice of the government authorities including the Income Tax authority so that not only the sources of the income of the person allegedly giving dowry but also the correctness of the allegations with regard to giving dowry are got verified and both the giver and the taker are brought to law.

This being so, all subordinate courts are bound by the aforesaid directions and are under an obligation to get an inquiry conducted and bring these facts to the notice of the Government Authorities particularly the Income Tax authorities.

The incidents of misuse and abuse of special provisions of dowry harassment are increasing by the day. The already overburdened judicial system cannot permit its misuse and abuse and it has, therefore, become necessary for the courts to verify the correctness of such allegations so as to eliminate the false complaints made in this regard at its inception. In view of the aforesaid, I find no ground to intervene. The revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this order. Copy of this order be placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to ensure strict compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (Supra) while conducting investigations in cases of dowry harassment.

Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court  (Dr. Kamini Lau)

on 02.06.2010 ASJ/NW-II, Rohini/2.6.10

Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09

False Dv and Women Failed to Prove it!

IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN : MM : ROHINI :DELHI

Application No.1192/1

PS Sultan Puri

U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005

ORDER

Sonia versus Vinod etc.

15.09.2007 ( At 3.00 p.m.)

1. Applicant Sonia is present in person at this time.

All the respondents are present in person with Ld. Counsel Shri Anujai Tiwari. Ld.

Protection Officer Ms. Kiran also present.

2. By this order, I have to decide an application of applicant Sonia w/o Shri Vinod and

D/o Shri Brahm Parkash ( in short called as applicant hereinafter) filed u/s 12 of the

Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( in short called as Act

hereinafter).

3. This application was filed by the applicant on 20.08.2007. The main facts of this

application are that the applicant was married to respondent No.1 on 19.11.2006;that

respondent No.1 and his other family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles

and they started harassing the applicant on one ground or the other; that severe beatings

were also given to the applicant by respondent No.1 and his other family members on

several occasions; that respondent No.1 was habitual of drinking and misbehaving with

the applicant from time to time without any justified reasons; that matter was also

reported to the local police but no action was taken against any of the respondents and

hence this application was filed claiming relief as prayed for at the end of the application.

4. Notice of this application was given to Ld. Protection Officer Ms. Kiran (in short

called as Protection Officer hereinafter) and she filed Domestic Incident report before this

court pertaining to this matter. Notice of this application was also issued to all the

respondents through Protection Officer and they had put their appearance before this

court through their Ld. Counsel on 01.09.2007. They were also supplied copies of the

application and all the relevant papers attached in support of it and they sought time to

file reply to this application. However, they did not opt to file any written reply to it and

their Ld. Counsel orally opposed this application on behalf of respondents without filing

any written reply.

5. I have heard applicant and her counsel Mr. Danvir Singh and Mr. Manjeet as well as

all the respondents and their Ld. Counsel Shri Baldev Sharan on 14.09.2007 pertaining to

this matter. Views of Protection officer were also taken into consideration as she was also

present on 14.09.2007. The main submissions of applicant and her Ld.

Counsel were that on the basis of entire facts narrated in the application coupled with

Domestic Incident Report submitted by Protection Officer, she was in dire need of

protection orders as per prayer clause of the application under discussion.

6. On the other hand, main submissions of the respondents and their Ld. Counsel were to

the effect that no domestic violence had ever been committed against the applicant by any

of the respondents; that respondent No.1 is the only married person in his family having

liability to support his widow mother aged about 75 years; that respondent No.1 was also

having liability to support his other three sisters and one brother, who were all unmarried

and depending upon the earnings of respondent No.1; that family of respondents was very

poor family and they were having only small house of three small rooms and they cannot

spare one room for the applicant exclusively out of this small accommodation; that

respondent No. 1 was also ready to reside peacefully with the applicant in his parental

house but the applicant herself was of quarrelsome nature and was not co-operating at all

on any point with the family members of respondent No.1; that respondent No.1 was still

ready to keep her in his parental house provided she cooperates with other family

members; that respondents were the victims rather than aggressors and that it was the

applicant only who was harassing the respondents on trivial matters. Lastly, a prayer was

made to dismiss the application under discussion.

7. I have perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival

submissions. I have also taken into consideration the view points of the Protection Officer

and the Domestic Incident Report submitted by her before this court.

8. On the basis of entire facts and circumstances of this case, I am prima facie of the

considered opinion that behaviour of applicant is of such a nature that she is not

cooperating with the respondents. She prima facie appears to be harassing the

respondents on trivial matters. The applicant has prima facie failed to satisfy this court

that respondent No.1 or any of his other family members have really committed any

Domestic Violence against her in the given facts and circumstances of this case. The

applicant prima facie appears to be residing at present with her parents without any

justified reasons. Her in-laws are very much in need of her company and support because

all the three sisters and one brother of respondent No.1 are unmarried at present and

prima facie depending upon the earnings of respondent No.1 and the mother of

respondent No.1 appears to be quite old and physically weak in health.

She also needs the services of her daughter-in-law namely,applicant for her own care and

protection.

9. On the basis of above mentioned discussion, I am prima-facie of the considered

opinion that no domestic violence has taken place pertaining to this matter and the

applicant does not deserve any order in her favour from this court at present. Her

application under discussion is prima facie found to be devoid of any merits at this stage

it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

10. Let one certified copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and one such copy

collectively to all the respondents as they are all family members. One certified copy of

this order be also sent to the SHO of area concerned and one such copy be also given to

the Protection Officer for her record, as prayed for.

Announced in the open court,

today i.e., on 15th of September, 2007.

(DR. SHAHABUDDIN)

MM. ROHINI / 15/9/07

Charge wife and family for giving dowry-Rohini Court Delhi

Charge wife and family for giving dowry-Rohini Court Delhi

admin | October 11, 2010

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU ASJ-II, NORTH WEST DISTT. ROHINI: DELHI

Crl. Revision No. 354/09

Uma Devi

W/o Sh. Sunil Garg,

D/o Sh. Jai Kumar,

R/o C-451/9, Chandra Quarters, Rampura, Delhi-35.

Presently residing at T/367/29, Onkar Nagar-B, Tri Nagar, Delhi-35.

VERSUS

1. Sunil Garg S/o Sh. S. C. Garg,

R/o 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34.

Address given in the complaint E-1/21, Phase-I, Budh Vihar, Delhi.

2. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Date of institution :  24.12.2009

Arguments heard on : 13.05.2010

Date of final order :  02.06.2010

O R D E R

This revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist/ petitioner Uma Devi the estranged wife of the respondent no.1, against the order of Ld. MM dated 21.10.2009 by way of which Ld. MM directed the SHO PS Maurya Enclave to conduct investigation on the allegations made in the complaint as they attracted the commission of cognizable offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The facts leading to the filing of the revision are briefly stated as under:

A complaint was made by the petitioner/ revisionist regarding harassment by the respondent and his family on account of dowry demand, on the basis of which FIR No. 218/09 was registered at Police Station Keshavpuram. In the said complaint it was alleged by the petitioner/ revisionist that she was married to respondent no.1 on 21.4.2008 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Shubham Vatika, Mundka, Delhi. As per the allegations prior to the marriage Roka ceremony had taken place on 28.1.2008 and God-Bharai ceremony was conducted on 15.4.2008 at Meri-Maker Banquet Hall, Wazirpur, Delhi and during the Roka and God-Bharai ceremonies the father of respondent no.1 had spoken to her father regarding the expenses to be incurred on the marriage and had demanded that Rs.15 to 16 lacs should be spent on the marriage and 25% to 30 % more was to be spent on the amount settled. It is also alleged by the petitioner/ present revisionist that after the marriage she was being harassed on account of insufficient dowry and demands were made by her in- laws on account of which a detail complaint was filed by the revisionist with the CAW Cell on 16.1.2009, which was after the almost 8 to 9 months of marriage. It was further alleged that respondent no.1 and his parents are influential people and despite her complaint, except registration of the FIR No. 218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Keshavpuram, neither any dowry articles have been returned nor any arrest has been made.

After the registration of the above FIR the respondent no.1 who is the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM alleging that the complaint of the present petitioner itself reflected that offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have been committed. It was alleged by the respondent no.1 that since the petitioner before this court has already alleged in her complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered, that pursuant to the demand by the family of the respondent, the father of the petitioner fulfilled their demands.

The Ld. MM taking into account the aforesaid directed the investigations and now being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this court alleging that in the complaint filed by the respondent u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C, he had intentionally given wrong address as L-425, Shakarpur Colony, New Delhi-34 whereas he is in-fact residing with his parents at 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and now in the complaint on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, he has given another false address i.e. E- 1/21, Phase-I, Budh Vihar, Delhi.

The Revisionist has also assailed the order of Ld. MM on the ground that it is against the law and facts. It is pleaded that the revisionist was residing earlier at Rampura, and now at Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar and the petitioner after her marriage had resided with respondent no. 1 and her in-laws at 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and no incident has happened within the jurisdiction of PS Maurya Enclave and the respondent no.1 has

intentionally mentioned the police station Maurya Enclave in his complaint and the order passed on the said complaint is having no territorial jurisdiction. It is alleged that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the false facts as a counter blast and as such is liable to he set aside. It is pleaded that the respondent no.1 and his relatives have been causing mental and physical harassment to her in respect of which FIR No.218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Keshav Puram has been registered. It is further pleaded that the offences for which directions have been given are not made out against her and her relations and as such the impugned order may be set aside as no specialized investigation is required to prove the allegations for commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Notice was issued to the respondents but no reply has been filed. The trial court record has been called which I have duly perused. I have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of the revisionist and the authorities relied upon by the parties, which are as under:

1. Sabir Vs. Jaswant and Others (2003) Vol. (1) RCR (Criminal) 479.

2. Ajai Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2001 (Vol. I) RCR (Criminal) 83.

3. Pawan Verma Vs. SHO PS Model Town & Ors. 2009 (Vol. 2) JCC 1000, Delhi High Court.

4. Kalia Prem Rattan Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 (Vol.1), RCR (Criminal) 769 (Punjab & Haryana High Court).

5.Trisuns Chemicals Industry Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal and Others, (1999) Vol. 8, SCC, 686.

6. Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007) DMC 545.

7. Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001, AIR, SCW 189.

Before proceeding further to decide the present revision on merits, it is necessary to observe that the order of Ld. Magistrate directing the police to investigate on the basis of the allegations made in a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can always be challenged in revision and therefore, the present revision petition is maintainable against the order of the Ld. MM.

The first challenge to the impugned order is on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. MM to entertain the complaint. In this regard it may be observed that the present revision is the outcome of the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 21.10.2009 on a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. On that aspect it is necessary to observe that provisions of Sections 190, 193, 179, 177 Cr. PC, are very clear. The arguments that the Ld. Magistrate taking cognizance should have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well, is on the face of it erroneous. The provisions of Section 177 and Section 179 Cr.PC do not restrict the power of any court of Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and the only restriction contained in Section 190 Cr. PC is that the power to take cognizance is subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Any Metropolitan Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of any offence, no matter whether the offence has been committed within his territorial jurisdiction or not. There is nothing in Chapter-IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impair the power of Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence on the strength of any territorial jurisdiction. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction would become relevant only when the question of inquiry or trial arises. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the Ld. Trial Court being the Metropolitan Magistrate, has power to take cognizance of the offence even if the offence was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction becomes relevant only after during the post cognizance stage.

Before proceeding further to discuss the validity of the impugned order on merits, it is necessary to discuss the existing statutory law. Dowry Prohibition Act, is a welfare legislation which aims at curtailing and abolishing the vice of dowry. Whenever the valuable security has been given as a consideration for marriage or for continuation of marriage for a good and happy relationship, then under such circumstances an act of giving or taking of valuable securities are both covered by the Act. (Ref.: Inder Sen Vs. Sinte, 1988, Criminal Law Journal, 1116). Dowry is a two way traffic and unless there is a giver there can be no taker and it is for this reason that in order to eliminate this evil both the giver and taker have been made liable (Under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) apart from the fact that even demand for dowry made is punishable (Under Section 4 of the Act). In a case where it is evident that there was a demand of dowry even before the marriage and pursuant to such demand, dowry was given as consideration of marriage, all persons making such demand for dowry and those giving valuable security as a consideration for marriage or for its continuance as well as those receiving this valuable security would be guilty under this Act. It is not possible to leave one and book another. Therefore, it is only that interpretation which is in-consonance with the object sought to be attained by the act that has to be adopted and nothing else would suffice.

Numerous social welfare legislations have been enacted in favour of women and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is one such legislation denouncing traditions and customary practices derogatory to women. It is unfortunate that this legislation has been reduced to a mere paper tiger and what is more unfortunate is the fact that it is none else but the family of the women (involved in the marriage) who is responsible for non accomplishment of this legislation. Dowry is shamelessly demanded, given and received under the pretext of social compulsions. It is time that this Social Welfare legislation (Dowry Prohibition Act) is ruthlessly implemented and none is permitted to take the shield of social compulsions. This has become all the more necessary in order to check the misuse and abuse of Special Laws.  It has been observed that a large number of customary gifts are exchanged at the time of marriage. These gifts fall outside the purview of dowry in case if they are Istridhan and find a mention in the list prepared and signed by both the parties (the family of the girl and boy) as required under the Dowry Prohibition Rules. However, expensive gifts given to relatives which do not fall within the definition of Istridhan are taxable in the hands of the recipient, in case if the value of the gift which would be a transfer for inadequate consideration exceeds the statutory limit as provided under the Income Tax Act. Also, in case of gift of any immovable property, the same would require a compulsory registration. It is, therefore, necessary for the courts of law to ensure that due inquiry and investigations are got conducted not only with regard to the source of income of the person giving dowry but also as to whether these transactions are duly reflected in the Wealth Tax returns of both the Donor and the Donee. Further, in case if it is established that expensive gifts (i.e. transfer for inadequate consideration) were given to relatives (beyond the stipulated limit), the competent authority be informed so as to ensure a proper fiscal benefit to the government by way of tax   from recipient of such a gift.

Coming now to the ground raised by the Revisionist that the order of the Ld. MM is against the law and facts. I may observe that the case of the present petitioner is that there was a demand of dowry by the respondent no.1 and his family even prior to her marriage. It is evident from the pleadings of the petitioner and even in her revision petition before this court she has alleged that there were discussions between her father and father of the respondent no.1 between the roka and godbharai ceremonies, wherein certain demands were made. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations FIR No.218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Keshav Puram has already been registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner against respondent no.1 and his family, which is under investigation. While the said investigations were pending, the respondent against whom allegations have been made by the petitioner in the main FIR, approached the court in the complaint under Section 156 (3) for proceedings against the present petitioner and her family for the various offences committed by him under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Ld. MM vide the impugned order dated 21.10.09 directed the SHO concerned to carry out investigation into the allegations made which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.

In the present case, on the basis of the complaint given by the present petitioner, an FIR bearing No. 218/09, PS Keshav Puram had already been registered. Another complaint has now been given by the accused husband of petitioner for registration of counter FIR against the family of the petitioner who are alleged to have given dowry pursuant to the demand raised by the family of the husband even before the marriage. This being so, it is not possible for the Ld. Magistrate under the given circumstances to make inquiries with regard to the correctness of the allegations regarding giving or taking of dowry which can only be got inquired into and investigated by the investigating agency which is already investigating the complaint given by the present petitioner alleging harassment on account of insufficient dowry on the basis of which the FIR has been already registered.

Directions of the High Court are the laws declared binding all subordinate courts. While dealing with a similar case Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Dhingra of the Delhi High Court has in the case of Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007) DMC 545, observed that Section 3 of the Act lays down a punishment for giving and taking dowry and therefore not only is it necessary for the courts to insist upon the compliance of the rules framed under the Act and draw adverse inference where these rules are not followed, but also to ensure that due inquiry and investigations are got conducted in all such cases which come before it with allegations of demand of dowry……. Whenever it is noticed that unaccounted cash amounts or expensive gifts are given at the time of marriage as consideration there of, then it is necessary for the courts of the Ld. Magistrates to bring these facts to the notice of the government authorities including the Income Tax authority so that not only the sources of the income of the person allegedly giving dowry but also the correctness of the allegations with regard to giving dowry are got verified and both the giver and the taker are brought to law.

This being so, all subordinate courts are bound by the aforesaid directions and are under an obligation to get an inquiry conducted and bring these facts to the notice of the Government Authorities particularly the Income Tax authorities.

The incidents of misuse and abuse of special provisions of dowry harassment are increasing by the day. The already overburdened judicial system cannot permit its misuse and abuse and it has, therefore, become necessary for the courts to verify the correctness of such allegations so as to eliminate the false complaints made in this regard at its inception. In view of the aforesaid, I find no ground to intervene. The revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this order. Copy of this order be placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to ensure strict compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (Supra) while conducting investigations in cases of dowry harassment.

Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court  (Dr. Kamini Lau)

on 02.06.2010 ASJ/NW-II, Rohini/2.6.10

Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09