In CRL.M.C. 4304/2014 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court upholds principle of limited scope for challenging concurrent findings under Section 482 of CrPC. while dismissing petitions challenging framing of charges in dowry harassment case
Justice Amit Sharma [16-11-2023]

Read Order: Ram Sahay Meena Kalky & Anr V. State & Anr

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, November 20, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed petitions filed by accused individuals in a matrimonial dispute case challenging the framing of charges against them. The High Court held that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that the concurrent findings of the Courts below were perverse and were beyond the facts of the case.

The present petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), sought to set aside separate orders dated 31.05.2014, passed by the Additional Session Judge at Dwarka Courts. These orders had dismissed revision petitions filed by the petitioners, challenging the order, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court. The revision petitions aimed at overturning the order dated 26.10.2013, where charges were framed. Mohan Lal Meena faced charges under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), while other accused individuals, namely Ram Sahay Meena Kalky, Rajeshwari Meena, Jagan Lal Meena, and Ram Nari Meena, faced charges under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC.

The case involved matrimonial disputes between Mohan Lal Meena and respondent no. 2, where respondent no. 2 alleged torture for dowry and abandonment by Mohan Lal Meena, leading to the lodging of a complaint at CAWC, Nanakpura, Delhi. Despite efforts for reconciliation and the filing of a chargesheet, the petitioners allegedly refused to cooperate and return the stridhan belonging to respondent no. 2, resulting in the registration of an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.

The counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that the petitioners' approach to the court through petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which essentially functioned as a second revision petition, was not maintainable due to the prior dismissal of the initial statutory revision petition under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma held that it is a well-settled principle of law that a second revision petition is not maintainable under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C., and the scope of challenging two concurrent findings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is limited. The petitioners have to demonstrate that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are perverse and are beyond the facts of the case. For this Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in interfering with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, it has to be demonstrated that the illegality in the said orders goes to the very root of the matter and, therefore, is not sustainable in law.

The bench observed that in the present case, the contentions raised by the petitioners were similar to those raised before the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. Both the courts below, had analysed the material in detail and had rightly concluded that the allegations against the present petitioners were specific. Consequently, they proceeded to frame respective charges against the present petitioners.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Session Judge. The petitions were dismissed and disposed of accordingly.