K.N Sinha, J.:— The present Criminal Revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Case No. 356/2002 whereby she acquitted the opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 for the offence under Sections 498-A. 406 and 506 Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that opposite parties no. 2 to 6 were facing trial before the court for the offence under sections 498A/504/506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on the F.I.R lodged by Smt. Runika Bhardwaj. Smt. Runika Bhardwaj revisionist was married with Shlok Bhardwaj on 25.1.1996 at Jabalpur according to Hindu custom and thereafter lived with him at Ghaziabad. The cash and other articles were given as dowry to her in the marriage, which has been misappropriated by the accused opposite parties. When she demanded her Stridhan she was beaten badly and on 6.10.1997 the accused beaten her making her half dead. She was also forced to live in desertion and trouble. Consequently the report was lodged and after investigation a charge sheet, under the above noted sections, was filed against the opposite parties. During trial Runika Bhardwaj, her father Sharad Chandra Tiwari and other witnesses were examined. After recording the statement of opposite parties accused under section 313 Cr.P.C the arguments were heard and ultimately opposite parties were acquitted by the concerned court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.
3. I have examined the evidence. The lower court record was summoned and is before the Court. I have examined the statement of witnesses and the revisionist. There is no dispute about the marriage. Smt. Runika Bhardwaj revisionist has stated that after the marriage the opposite parties demanded C.D System and other articles. Her husband Shlok Bhardwaj went to join his service and other family members started torturing her. She was given a place on the cot near the staircase of the house and door and windows were locked so that she may not meet any one. When she enquired about the address of Shlok Bhardwaj, she was not told and threatened that unless she brought the diamond ring and papers of the house at Jabalpur she would not be told the address of Shlok Bhardwaj. Shlok Bhardwaj also gave two lists containing 12 points and 35 points to maintain her according to the same. The said papers are exhibit ka-2 and exhibit ka-3 in lower court record. She also alleged that Shlok Bhardwaj gave an advertisement in the newspaper for his marriage and entered into correspondence in the name Sani. The revisionist wrote a letter Exhibit Ka-1 to her father regarding the demands. The father of the revisionist has also given two drafts worth Rs. 1,55,000/- on 26th June 1997 which was taken by the opposite parties to Delhi but she was not permitted to meet her husband unless her father gave a flat in Noida. The father of revisionist Sharad Chandra Tiwari PW-2 has supported the version of the revisionist. She was confronted with the conditions laid down for the marital life in Exhibit ka-2 and ka-3 then she replied that by that she was expected a good conduct. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has laid much stress on this. The single statement cannot be the basis for disbelieving the said exhibit and whole of evidence.
4. I have perused those conditions which show that no such instruction can be given even to small boy or girl in the house. This undertaking was that she will never ask to call her parents nor she can make any telephonic call to her parents. She will follow the directions of the husband without any question. The family members shall not be responsible for suicide and she will be fully responsible. The parents cannot call her to Jabalpur nor she will go there. She cannot ring to any one at Jabalpur without the consent of her husband. She will treat the husband as Pati Parmeshwar. These are few examples of the conditions given therein. So far as exhibit ka-3 is concerned, it is still more harsh. The contents of both exhibits ka-2 and ka-3 shows that it is suffocating for any person and amounts to harassment, cruelty and mental torture. Section 498A IPC speaks of commission of cruelty by the husband or the relative of the husband. The cruelty has been defined in Explanation (a) and (b) of the said section. The demand of articles, papers of house property of Jabalpur and Noida all come under the definition of Explanation (b) to section 498-A IPC. The Magistrate has also skipped over these facts simply picking a line from the statement of Smt. Runika Bhardwaj revisionist that it was for her good conduct. The document which is speaking clearly otherwise, how can it be undone by a line of the statement. The Magistrate has also inserted her own view over the evidence. The revisionist and her father have stated that living standard of the said family was below a class IV employee. The Magistrate has come to the conclusion holding that no father can marry her daughter, who has spent pre marital period in a rich status, in such a family.
5. The Magistrate has took up only one word from exhibit ka-2 and ka-3 regarding putting bindi and sindoor and skipped over all other conditions set forth therein. Thus, the Magistrate has twisted whole of the evidence which resulted in acquittal.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has cited number of case laws showing that in revision the powers of Revisional court are very limited and it cannot sit over the matter as an appellate court. He has relied upon Hydru v. State Of Kerala., reported in (2004) 13 SCC 374 in which it has been held that Revisional court can interfere only if there is any procedural irregularity or material evidence have been overlooked or misread by the subordinate court. As I have mentioned earlier the conditions contained in exhibit ka-2 and ka-3 are examples of overlooking and misreading of the evidence by the subordinate court. Similarly learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon following case laws:—
(a) D. Stephens v. Nosibolla (AIR 1951 SC 196) (para 10)
(b) P.N.G Raju v. B.P Appadu (AIR 1975 SC 1854) (para 10)
(c) K. Chinnaswami Reddy v. State of A.P (AIR 1962 SC 1788) (Para 7)
(d) Mahendra Pratap Singh; v. Sarju Singh & Another (AIR 1968 SC 707) (Para 8)
(e) Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 2002 SC 2907 (Para 13, 14, 15)
(f) Satyendra Nath Dutta v. Ram Narain (AIR 1975 SC 580)
(g) Aklu Ahir v. Ram Deo (AIR 1973 SC 2145).
7. A perusal of all the judgments, cited above, nowhere shows that the Revisional court should shut its eyes even over where the evidence have been misread and misrepresented or overlooked. The case of Hydru (Supra) is very clear on this point. Especially in the case of harassment of a wife by the husband and his family members the court should be more cautious and scrutinize the evidence carefully.
8. Consequently the revision is hereby allowed. Order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad in Case no. 356/2002 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial court with the direction that the trial court shall hear the counsel for the parties and after properly appreciating the evidence decide the case according to law.