Smt. Chetna v. State & Anr

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J DECEMBER 17, 2019 ga

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P. 1094/2018 Reserved on : 05.12.2019 Decision on : 17.12.2019 IN THE MATTER OF: CRL.REV.P. 1094/2018 SMT. CHETNA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Francis Paul and Mr. Biswambar Nayak, Advocates. versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State with SI Sanjugita from PS- Dwarka Sector-23. Mr. Jagat Singh Baasla , Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI 1. The Present revision petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 18.10.2018 passed in FIR No. 180/2018 registered under Sections 376/417/406/493 IPC at P.S. Dwarka Sector 23, whereby the respondent no.2 was discharged. 2. The brief facts noted by the trial court are as under:- "1. FIR in question was registered on complaint given by prosecutrix on 25.04.2018 to SHO, PS Sector-23, alleging that on 24.04.2013 she married accused as per Hindu rites in presence of family members of accused. Both prosecutrix and accused were divorcee. After marriage, prosecutrix did not find behavior of accused cordial. Prosecutrix alleged at the time of marriage, accused told her that he would give all rights to prosecutrix and her son but he did not enter name of prosecutrix in his service record. Accused told prosecutrix that he-is not divorced. Accused executed an affidavit on 15.11.2016 that he would marry prosecutrix as soon he will get divorced. Prosecutrix alleged that accused married her on basis of forged documents and established physical relations with her. Prosecutrix alleged that accused is not returning her gold and he also took Rs2 lakh from her parents to settle his divorce case. 2. During investigation prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement was recorded u/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. Accused was formally arrested and charge-sheeted to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 376/417/406/493 IPC." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order being arbitrary and decided on incorrect appreciation of facts. It is submitted that the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation before the Police as well as before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, are consistent and disclose the commission of offence by the respondent No. 2. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/accused has supported the impugned order and has submitted that even if the prosecution case is assumed to be correct, no case is made out against the respondent. He submitted that the prosecutrix is a mature and a divorced lady and was always aware of the marital status of the respondent No. 2. He further submitted that the prosecutrix willingly lived with the respondent No. 2 and was not under any misconception of promise of marriage by the respondent No. 2. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported as 2018 SCC Online SC 3100. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the trial court record. The FIR in the present case came to be registered on a direction to the SHO passed in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix initially made a complaint addressed to SHO, P.S. R.K. Puram, which was received vide DD No. 56B on 23.04.2016. No action forthcoming, the prosecutrix gave another complaint to the SHO, P.S. Dwarka on 25.04.2018 on which later, aforesaid directions under Section 156(3) was given by the Metropolitan Magistrate. After registration of the FIR, a statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The investigating agency also seized the divorce papers of both the parties as well as the marriage photographs handed over by the prosecutrix. 6. In the first complaint made to the SHO, P.S. R.K. Puram, it was stated by the prosecutrix that she got marr