Delhi court refuses to discharge husband, in-laws in dowry case
A sessions court here has refused to discharge the husband and in-laws of a woman of cruelty charges in a domestic violence case, saying a prima facie case is made out against them.
New Delhi: A sessions court here has refused to discharge the husband and in-laws of a woman of cruelty charges in a domestic violence case, saying a prima facie case is made out against them.
Special judge Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the revision petition of the woman's husband, his mother, two brothers and a sister, challenging the framing of charges under sections 498A (cruelty to woman), read with 34 (common intention) of IPC and under provision of Dowry Prohibition Act, against them.
"The complainant has made specific allegations against the petitioners as to harassment and cruelty by them to her to meet their unlawful demands of dowry and also that the mother- in-law has taken jewellery articles of the complainant which have not been returned.
"Accordingly, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offences," the judge said.
An FIR was registered against the accused persons and charges were framed against them by a trial court on December 19, 2014 for the offences of dowry harassment and cruelty, and an additional charge under section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC was framed against the mother-in-law.
The woman, who got married in 2003, had alleged that her in-laws, including her husband, were upset with her for bringing insufficient dowry and were harassing her.
She had alleged that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had taunted her and beaten her up while demanding Rs 20,000 and Rs two lakh on two separate occasions and all her jewellery was taken away by her mother-in-law.
While upholding the trial court's order, the sessions court also relied on the testimonies of the woman's parents and sister who deposed that she was cruelly treated by her in-laws.
"The revision petition is without any merits and it is dismissed," it said.
The accused in their petition, had contended that the trial court had passed the order on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is against the facts and law.
They had claimed that allegations made by the complainant were general and vague.
The husband had alleged that he and his wife had reached a compromise through a Lok Adalat, but the woman backed out later and filed the case.