New Delhi: A Delhi court has rejected the plea of a man that he and his family members never tortured the bride for dowry and asked the police to prosecute them.
Additional Sessions Judge Madhu Jain dismissed the man`s plea that he was willing to keep his wife with him and that she was never harassed by her in-laws, saying that "specific allegations" are not only against her husband but also against her in-laws.
The court also allowed the prosecution of the man`s father, mother, brother and sister for harassing and torturing the woman for bringing less dowry.
"In the present case, perusal of report under Section 173 CrPC as well as statement of complainant and other witnesses shows that there are specific allegations not only against petitioner No 1 (husband) but also against petitioner No 2-5 (father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law).
"There are clear and substantive allegations against the in-laws for demanding dowry and harassing the complainant," the court said.
Delhi resident Hariom and his family members had moved the sessions court challenging the framing of charges against them under section 498A of IPC by a magisterial court on the complaint of Ranjana Devi.
Apart from subjecting the woman to cruelty, the court has also ordered the framing charges of criminal breach of trust against the mother-in-law and her sister-in-law.
The complainant was married to Hariom in April 2003. She
alleged that her in-laws used to make dowry demands, beat her up and instigate her husband against her.
She told the court that her sister-in-law also used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. She had said her jewellery and other dowry articles too have been taken away by her in-laws.
The complainant also told the court that in February 2004, her in-laws had forcibly thrown her and her minor son out of the matrimonial home after beating her up, the complainant told the court.
In their appeal to the sessions court, the accused had told the court that it was an arranged marriage and the father of the girl did not allow her daughter to leave him as he does not have any son and therefore he did not allow her to go to her matrimonial home.
But the sessions court upheld the magisterial court`s order and directed all five of them to appear before the metropolitan magistrate on August 22 to face trial.
Rejecting the man`s plea, the court also said, "Perusal of the trial court record reveals that after filing of the charge sheet in the court, trial court did not only take cognisance of the offence against the husband but also took cognisance of the offence against other accused persons, holding that there is sufficient material on record against the in-laws".