Judgment:
S.C. Jain, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife, Smt. Kamal Chawla, a case under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. being FIR No. 314/88 was registered against Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Chawla, her husband; Shri K.S. Chawla and Smt. Mohinder Kaur her in-laws. The challan was filed against all these three accused persons, who are the petitioners before me.
2. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Metropolitan Magistrate found a prima facie case against all these three accused persons and ordered framing of charge against them under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. vide his order dated 4.6.1992. This order has been challenged by these petitioners in this petition.
3. The thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made against them are vague and no specific instances have been given involving these accused persons either under Section 498-A or 406 I.P.C. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the complainant was residing with her husband i.e. Ravinder Pal Singh Chawla at Jalandhar, while her in-laws were residing at Delhi and there was no occasion for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who were residing at Delhi to harass the petitioner for want of dowry. Relying upon the decisions reported in 1989 CC 23; 1989 CC 461; 1989 CC Cases 465; 1980 (1) CC Cases 526 and 1990 (2) CC Cases 263, the learned Counsel argued that as far as these two petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the in-laws are concerned, no charge can be framed against them and the order passed by the Trial Court framing the charge against these petitioners is also illegal and void and is liable to be set aside. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners do not help the petitioners in the present circumstances of the case. Every case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts.
4. Learned Counsel for the State strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and submitted that a perusal of the FIR shows the involvement of these petitioners in the said offence. After six months of marriage when the complainant had come to Delhi to live with her in-laws, she was tortured and harassed by her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry and she was compelled to bring Rs. 12,000 from her parents and actually a cheque for Rs. 12,000 was brought by her in the name of her mother-in-law which was duly encased in May, 1984. According to the learned State Counsel there are other documentary evidence i.e. the letter dated 18.1.86 and 8.10.86, the copies of which are on record wherein the complainant has mentioned about these facts. It is stated that she was given beatings and the jewellery belonging to her was not returned to her despite demand. According to the learned Counsel, for the purpose of framing charge under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. the evidence is sufficient to frame charge against these three petitioners.
5. As far as the legal proposition is concerned, the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunia : 1979CriLJ1390 has laid down that the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Cr.P.C. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
6. In this case, the FIR, and the evidence collected in this respect during investigation show on prima facie ground that all these three accused persons, who are the petitioners herein, are liable to be tried for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C.
7. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in charging all the three accused persons to face trial under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. No ground for interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 4.6.1992 in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The same is dismissed.
Record of the Lower Court be sent back immediately along with a copy of this order.