{"id":268233,"date":"2011-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-18T07:26:53","modified_gmt":"2016-10-18T01:56:53","slug":"shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: A. K. Pathak<\/div>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI\n\n+               CRL.REV.PET. NO. 117\/2011\n\n                        Judgment reserved on 16th March, 2011\n\n%                       Judgment delivered on 20th May, 2011\n\nSHRI VARUN SHARMA (CARLAY)                             ....PETITIONER\n\n                             Through:    Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Adv.\n\n                             Versus\n\nTHE STATE (NCT, DELHI) & ORS.                         ....RESPONDENTS\n\n                             Through:    Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the\n                                         State.\n                                         Mr. Adbhut Pathak, Adv. for\n                                         respondent No. 2.\n\nCoram:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK\n\n\n        1. Whether the Reporters of local papers                    No\n           may be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n        2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                       No\n\n        3. Whether the judgment should be                           No\n           reported in the Digest?\n\nA.K. PATHAK, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.      Complainant (respondent No. 2) is husband of respondent<\/p>\n
No. 3. Petitioner is brother-in-law (wife’s husband) of respondent<\/p>\n
No. 2. In the month of April, 1997, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 met<\/p>\n
each other in a train while travelling from Delhi to Hyderabad.<\/p>\n
They became friends. They continued to meet thereafter. With<\/p>\n
the passage of time love blossomed between them. Ultimately,<\/p>\n
they got married on 28th November, 1997 at Arya Samaj Mandir,<\/p>\n
Rathkhana, Bikaner according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                       Page 1 of 14<\/span>
\n appears that after the marriage their relations became estranged.<\/p>\n
Respondent No. 2, inter alia, alleged that respondent No. 3 had<\/p>\n
concealed her real age, her marital status and the fact that she<\/p>\n
was having two children out of her previous wedlock with one<\/p>\n
Wasif Khalil. She had also concealed that at the time of marriage<\/p>\n
with Wasif Khalil she had embraced Islam.           Respondent No. 3<\/p>\n
filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of nullity<\/p>\n
under Sections 5<\/a> and 12<\/a> of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the<\/p>\n
month of November, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
\n
2.      On 16th September, 2000, that is, few months prior to filing<\/p>\n
of the petition for dissolution of marriage, respondent No. 2 had<\/p>\n
filed a complaint under Section 200<\/a> Cr.P.C. before the Additional<\/p>\n
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (ACMM), praying<\/p>\n
therein that petitioner and respondent No.3 be summoned tried<\/p>\n
and        punished         for   the   offences    under     Sections<\/p>\n
406<\/a>\/415<\/a>\/419<\/a>\/420<\/a>\/463<\/a>\/468<\/a>\/469<\/a>\/471<\/a> IPC.                  Pursuant to the<\/p>\n
directions of the court under Section 156<\/a> (3) Cr.P.C<\/a>., FIR No.<\/p>\n
690\/2000 under Sections 406<\/a>\/419<\/a>\/420<\/a> IPC has been registered<\/p>\n
at Police Station Kalkaji.        After the investigation, charge-sheet<\/p>\n
was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who took<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offences and summoned the petitioner and<\/p>\n
respondent No. 3 vide order dated 23rd August, 2002. Petitioner<\/p>\n
filed an application seeking his discharge. This application was<\/p>\n
allowed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 11th<\/p>\n
April, 2005. Petitioner was discharged. Respondent No. 1 (State)<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                   Page 2 of 14<\/span>
\n preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 68\/2006 before the<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi against the discharge of<\/p>\n
petitioner.         By the order impugned in this petition, Revision<\/p>\n
Petition has been allowed.         Additional Sessions Judge has held<\/p>\n
that a, prima facie, case was made against the petitioner for<\/p>\n
having committed offence under Sections 406<\/a> read with Section<\/p>\n
120-B<\/a> IPC and he be charged accordingly by the Trial Court.<\/p>\n
3.      That is how petitioner is before this court by way of present<\/p>\n
petition under Section 397<\/a> Cr.P.C. Initially petitioner had filed<\/p>\n
the petition under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C. praying therein that FIR<\/p>\n
No. 690\/2000 under Sections 406<\/a>\/419<\/a>\/420<\/a> IPC registered at<\/p>\n
Police Station Kalkaji and the consequent proceedings emanating<\/p>\n
therefrom be quashed; order dated 5th March, 2007 passed by<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge be also set aside.             However, since<\/p>\n
counsel       for    the    respondent   No.   2   had   challenged     the<\/p>\n
maintainability of petition under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C., at the<\/p>\n
request of petitioner’s counsel, present petition has been treated<\/p>\n
as a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
Section 401<\/a> Cr.P.C. vide order dated 11th March, 2011, inasmuch<\/p>\n
as, petitioner has confined his prayer only with regard to setting<\/p>\n
aside of the order of Additional Sessions Judge.<\/p>\n
4.      Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that<\/p>\n
the petitioner had earlier filed a petition under Section 482<\/a><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR. However, during the course of<\/p>\n
arguments of the said petition, he did not press the said relief<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                     Page 3 of 14<\/span>
\n and confined his prayer only to the grant of bail. This fact has<\/p>\n
been concealed in this petition, thus, present petition is liable to<\/p>\n
be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on S.P. Chengalvaraya<\/p>\n
Naidu vs. Jagannath and Ors<\/a>. (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Rajinder<\/p>\n
Prasad vs. Bashir & Ors. JT<\/a> 2001 (7) SC 652. I do not find<\/p>\n
much force in this contention.           It appears that earlier petition<\/p>\n
had been filed at the initial stages.           Petitioner did not press<\/p>\n
quashing of the FIR at that stage and confined his prayer only to<\/p>\n
the grant of bail.          By way of present petition, petitioner is not<\/p>\n
seeking quashing of the FIR. He seeks to challenge the order of<\/p>\n
the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby Trial Court has been<\/p>\n
directed to frame charge under Section 406<\/a> read with Section<\/p>\n
120-B<\/a> IPC against him. Thus, remedy to challenge the order on<\/p>\n
charge is available to the petitioner under Section 397<\/a> Cr.P.C. It<\/p>\n
is not the case that petitioner had obtained any relief by<\/p>\n
concealing the material facts which may make any order or<\/p>\n
decree a nullity.           In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
respondent had obtained a decree against the appellant by<\/p>\n
concealing the “release deed”. In these facts, it was held that if a<\/p>\n
party withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on<\/p>\n
the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the<\/p>\n
court as well as on the other party and such decree is liable to be<\/p>\n
set aside.        In Rajinder Prasad’s case (supra) earlier Revision<\/p>\n
Petition filed under Section 397<\/a> Cr.P.C. had been dismissed as<\/p>\n
not pressed.         Petitioner preferred a petition under Section 482<\/a><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. seeking same relief as sought in the Revision Petition. In
\nCrl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                     Page 4 of 14<\/span>
\n these facts, it was held that earlier Revision Petition filed under<\/p>\n
Section 397<\/a> Cr.P.C. having been dismissed as not pressed,<\/p>\n
accused cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent powers of the<\/p>\n
High Court for the grant of same relief. In the present case, by<\/p>\n
the earlier petition under Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C., petitioner had<\/p>\n
prayed for quashing of the FIR at the initial stage; whereas<\/p>\n
present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of<\/p>\n
the Additional Sessions Judge whereby it has been held that a,<\/p>\n
prima facie, case was made out against the petitioner for framing<\/p>\n
of charge under Section 406<\/a> read with Section 120-B<\/a> IPC. Non-<\/p>\n
mentioning of factum of dismissal of the earlier petition under<\/p>\n
Section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C. in these circumstances, by itself, would not<\/p>\n
be sufficient and adequate to throw away this Revision Petition.<\/p>\n
5.      Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has next<\/p>\n
contended that application of the petitioner seeking his discharge<\/p>\n
was disposed of by the Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated<\/p>\n
11th April, 2005. In the Revision filed by the State this order has<\/p>\n
been set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has<\/p>\n
directed the Trial Court to frame charge against the petitioner<\/p>\n
under Section 406<\/a> read with Section 120-B<\/a> IPC.        Charge has<\/p>\n
already been framed by the Trial Court. Thus, present petition<\/p>\n
assailing the order of Additional Sessions Judge has become<\/p>\n
infructuous. Reliance has been placed on Uma Shankar Singh<\/p>\n
vs. State of Bihar<\/a> 2010 (9) SCC 479. I do not find any force in<\/p>\n
this contention of learned counsel either. It is not the case that<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                               Page 5 of 14<\/span>
\n after setting aside the order of the Trial Court, Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge has remanded the case back to the Trial Court<\/p>\n
for considering the matter afresh on charge. Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge has returned a categorical finding that a, prima facie, case<\/p>\n
was made out against the petitioner under Section 406<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
Section 120-B<\/a> IPC and the charge be framed against him.<\/p>\n
Metropolitan Magistrate has framed charge pursuant to this<\/p>\n
order. Petitioner cannot be made remediless against the order on<\/p>\n
charge. Present petition challenging the framing of charge, thus,<\/p>\n
is maintainable.            Uma Shankar Singh’s case (supra) is in the<\/p>\n
context of different facts and is not applicable to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
\n
6. By placing reliance on Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of<\/p>\n
Investigation<\/a>, 2010 (9) SCC 368, State of Bihar vs. Ramesh<\/p>\n
Singh<\/a>, 1977 (4) SCC 39, State of Andhra Pradesh vs.<\/p>\n
Aravapally Venkanna & Ors<\/a>. 2009(2) Crimes (SC) 455 and<\/p>\n
Mrs. Sapna Ahuja vs. State & Ors<\/a>. 1999 (2) JCC [DELHI] 534,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has contended that at<\/p>\n
the stage of framing of charge court has only to see as to whether<\/p>\n
any, prima facie, case is made out against the accused on the<\/p>\n
basis of material collected during the investigation.       Court has<\/p>\n
not to make any roving enquiry or to look into the records for the<\/p>\n
purposes of acquittal\/conviction of the accused.          Metropolitan<\/p>\n
Magistrate had made a roving enquiry and made an elaborate<\/p>\n
analysis of the facts and material placed on record as if the trial<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                   Page 6 of 14<\/span>
\n had been concluded and prosecution had failed to prove its case<\/p>\n
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.       Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge has rightly arrived at a finding on the basis of material<\/p>\n
placed on record of Trial Court that a, prima facie, case was<\/p>\n
disclosed against the petitioner for having committed the offences<\/p>\n
under Section 406<\/a> read with Section 120-B<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\n
7.      Indubitably, at the stage of framing of charge court has<\/p>\n
only to see as to whether any, prima facie, case is disclosed<\/p>\n
against the accused, for framing the charge against him for the<\/p>\n
offence for which he has been sent to face trial, on the basis of<\/p>\n
material collected during the investigation.     At the stage of<\/p>\n
framing of charge court has not to see whether there is sufficient<\/p>\n
ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure<\/p>\n
to end in his conviction.   On the material collected during the<\/p>\n
investigation, if there is ground for presuming that accused has<\/p>\n
committed the offence, the court can justifiably say that a, prima<\/p>\n
facie, case against him exists. At that stage, probative value of<\/p>\n
the materials on record cannot be gone into. At the same time, a<\/p>\n
court, at the time of framing of charge, is not to act merely as a<\/p>\n
post-office or mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has powers to<\/p>\n
sift and weigh the evidence, but for a limited purpose only. This<\/p>\n
exercise has to be undertaken by him only with a view to find out<\/p>\n
as to whether a, prima facie, case is made out or not.          The<\/p>\n
existence of a, prima facie, case may be found even on the basis<\/p>\n
of strong suspicion against the accused. At the stage of framing<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                              Page 7 of 14<\/span>
\n of charge, court has only to assess, evaluate and weigh the<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence purely to see whether a, prima facie, case<\/p>\n
exists and frame charge after forming an opinion that the<\/p>\n
commission of offence was possible on the part of the accused.<\/p>\n
8.      In the backdrop of the above settled legal position it has to<\/p>\n
be now seen as to whether a, prima face, is disclosed against the<\/p>\n
accused for having committed the offence under Section 406<\/a> read<\/p>\n
with Section 120-B<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\n
9.      At this stage, relevant it would be to refer to para Nos. 8,<\/p>\n
11, 13 and 16 of the complaint, concerning the petitioner, which<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         “8. That during one of his visits to Delhi in April,
\n         ’99, the complainant entrusted his Sony
\n         Handycam recorder (Value approx. `30,000\/-) to
\n         the accused No. 1 and her younger brother, Varun
\n         Sharma (accused No. 2), for two days as they were
\n         having a party at Faridabad, the complainant gave
\n         them the same with the understanding that the it
\n         will be returned to him in two days. The same has
\n         not been returned despite the complainant’s
\n         repeated requests, and has been dishonestly
\n         misappropriated and converted to their own use
\n         by the accused No. 1 and her brother, Varun
\n         (accused No. 2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         11. That in the first week of January 2000,
\n         Varun Sharma (accused No. 2, the younger
\n         brother of the accused No. 1) who claimed to be a
\n         computer engineer called up the complainant
\n         when he was in Delhi and told the complainant of
\n         a supposedly good bargain for a computer which
\n         the complainant had planned to buy. Accused No.
\n         2 said that the complainant should not let
\n         personal state of relations stop the complainant
\n         from taking advantage of the bargain he was
\n         telling of. The complainant asked him to come to
\n         Narula’s Connaught Place, where Bhavna (the
\n         accused No. 1) also came. The complainant gave<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                 Page 8 of 14<\/span>
\n          the accused No. 2 and Bhavna (the accused No. 1)
\n         ` 7,000\/- in cash and two blank cheques which
\n         were to be used for the payment after the
\n         complainant got the loan sanctioned, and on
\n         delivery of the computer. The price of the Pentium\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         – III computer was to be `67,000\/- which he
\n         claimed to be at least 20% cheaper than the then
\n         prevalling prices in the market.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         13. That in April, 2000, the complainant’s
\n         account was debited for an amount of `41,000\/-
\n         and subsequently for `13,000\/- by means of the
\n         said two blank cheques.        The complainant
\n         pursued Varun and Bhavna (accused No. 2 & 1)
\n         for the computer and on inquiry the complainant
\n         has now learned that they have misappropriated
\n         these two cheques and the `7,000\/- in cash, by
\n         issuing the two cheques in settlement of her (the
\n         accused No. 1’s) dues payable to the landlord at
\n         Vasant Kunj where the accused No. 1 was a
\n         tenant and `13,000\/- for the settlement of her
\n         transportation bills.     The two have also
\n         dishonestly misappropriated the `7,000\/- paid in
\n         cash.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         16. That on 21st July, 2000, the accused No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
         phoned the complainant at Chandigarh and asked
\n         the complainant to come to Faridabad to amicably
\n         settle for a divorce and other pending issues, and
\n         in connection with a problem she was facing at
\n         Faridabad. The complainant reached Faridabad
\n         and called upon the accused No. 1 (Bhavna) and
\n         her brother (accused No. 2) to return his moneys
\n         and goods. The complainant also raised the issue
\n         of divorce. Before discussing divorce, Bhavna
\n         asked the complainant to visit one Mr. S.D.
\n         Aggarwal alongwith her, who was creating
\n         problems for her. On 22.7.2000, a fray ensued
\n         and the complainant was injured.               The
\n         complainant later learnt that Mr. S.D. Aggarwal
\n         did not know complainant’s story and the correct
\n         facts. In fact he and the colony people were fed-
\n         up of strangers visiting Bhavna at odd hours.
\n         They claimed that by her behavior the accused No.
\n         1 was vitiating the atmosphere of the colony and
\n         creating a bad influence on the young of the
\n         colony.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                               Page 9 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
 10.     During the investigation, respondent No. 2 was asked by<\/p>\n
the Investigating Officer to produce the receipt of purchase of<\/p>\n
Sony Handycam recorder. He promised that he would hand over<\/p>\n
the same to the Investigating Officer. However, no such receipt<\/p>\n
was ever produced during the investigation nor has been placed<\/p>\n
on record by the prosecution.             In the month of April, 1999,<\/p>\n
respondent No. 2 had not married respondent No. 3.                    Their<\/p>\n
courtship was going on.            It was only on 28th November, 1999<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had married in Arya Samaj Mandir,<\/p>\n
Rathkhana, Bikaner.            It has nowhere been mentioned that the<\/p>\n
marriage was solemnized between the parties with the consent of<\/p>\n
their respective parents. It appears to be a love marriage. After<\/p>\n
the alleged incident of handing over of Sony Handycam Recorder<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 had been married respondent No.3 in a temple.<\/p>\n
These allegations of misappropriation of Handycam have only<\/p>\n
surfaced after the relationship between respondent Nos. 2 and 3<\/p>\n
became sour, inasmuch as, the allegations of handing over of<\/p>\n
Sony Handycam recorder to respondent No. 3 and petitioner lack<\/p>\n
material particulars as regards place and time. Respondent No.<\/p>\n
2 has not even produced any documentary evidence before the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer to show that he, in fact, possessed any such<\/p>\n
Handycam recorder in the month of April, 1999. As regards the<\/p>\n
allegation of respondent No. 2 handing over of the two blank<\/p>\n
cheques to the petitioner along with `7,000\/- in cash is<\/p>\n
concerned,        the       same   do   not   inspire   much   confidence.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, the alleged two blank cheques had not been used by
\nCrl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                      Page 10 of 14<\/span>
\n the petitioner for his own personal benefits.              He had not<\/p>\n
manipulated these cheques to withdraw the amount of `41,000\/-<\/p>\n
and `13,000\/- respectively for his personal use and benefits. In<\/p>\n
fact these cheques had been utilized by the respondent No.3,<\/p>\n
who was legally wedded wife of respondent No.2, to clear arrears<\/p>\n
of rent and pay taxi charges. The cheque for `41,000\/- had been<\/p>\n
given to the landlord of respondent No. 3. It emerges that the<\/p>\n
respondent No. 3 had been living as a tenant in a flat in Vasant<\/p>\n
Kunj owned by one Shri. Anil Kaushik even when courtship<\/p>\n
between the private respondents was going on.                There were<\/p>\n
arrears of rent payable by respondent No. 3 to said Shri Anil<\/p>\n
Kaushik.        In fact, respondent No. 3 had issued a cheque for<\/p>\n
`6,500\/- against part payment of arrears to Shri Anil Kaushik in<\/p>\n
the month of December 1998, which had been returned<\/p>\n
dishonored and a complaint case under Section 138<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable        Instruments   Act,    1881     was   pending   between<\/p>\n
respondent No. 3 and Shri Anil Kaushik in Chandigarh. In his<\/p>\n
statement        recorded   under      Section   161<\/a>   Cr.P.C.   by   the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, Shri Anil Kaushik has categorically stated<\/p>\n
that respondent No. 2, accompanied with respondent No. 3, had<\/p>\n
met him in Chandigarh and had promised to clear the entire<\/p>\n
arrears. Anil Kaushik has also handed over photocopy of letter<\/p>\n
acknowledging the receipt of the keys of Vasant Kunj flat from<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 to the IO. It has also come on record that<\/p>\n
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had taken House No. 667, Sector 17,<\/p>\n
Faridabad on rent sometime in the month of January, 2000 after
\nCrl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                    Page 11 of 14<\/span>
\n vacating the Vasant Kunj flat. Shri K.N. Bhatia, in his statement<\/p>\n
recorded under Section 161<\/a> Cr.P.C. has stated that House No.<\/p>\n
667, Sector 17, Faridabad was owned by his son Sanjeev Bhatia<\/p>\n
who was working as a Captain in Navy.              In the month of<\/p>\n
December, 1999 the said house was given to respondent No. 2 on<\/p>\n
monthly rent of `2500\/- and a lease agreement to this effect was<\/p>\n
also executed. Since Sanjeev used to remain out of the city in<\/p>\n
connection with his duties, thus, he had been managing the<\/p>\n
affairs of his son. Respondent No. 2 had started living in the said<\/p>\n
house with respondent No. 3 with effect from the first week of<\/p>\n
January, 2000.              As regards the cheque for ` 13,000\/- is<\/p>\n
concerned, the same was given to A.Z. Khan towards the taxi<\/p>\n
charges. A.Z. Khan has stated in his statement under Section<\/p>\n
161<\/a> Cr.P.C. that he was the owner of Evershine International<\/p>\n
Taxi Agency and respondent No. 3 had given him a cheque for<\/p>\n
`13,000\/-. It is an admitted fact that private respondents had a<\/p>\n
quarrel with their neighbour S.D. Aggarwal at Faridabad on 22nd<\/p>\n
July, 2000 and had to cool their heels in jail. Both the cheques<\/p>\n
had been encashed in the month of April, 2000 much prior to<\/p>\n
this incident. It, thus, appears that the cheques had been used<\/p>\n
by wife of the respondent No.2 while they were living together. It<\/p>\n
is only after matrimonial disputes arose between them complaint<\/p>\n
has been filed wherein petitioner has also been impleaded as an<\/p>\n
accused in order to put pressure on the wife to come to terms<\/p>\n
with him. It may be noted that divorce petition has been<\/p>\n
dismissed by before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the
\nCrl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                 Page 12 of 14<\/span>
\n appeal. Status of private respondents is still that of husband and<\/p>\n
wife.\n<\/p>\n
\n
11.     A growing tendency is noticed in matrimonial disputes<\/p>\n
between husband and wife to implicate family members of the<\/p>\n
other spouse in criminal proceedings so as to put pressure on<\/p>\n
the spouse to come to terms. The courts, therefore, have to be<\/p>\n
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with such complaints<\/p>\n
and must take pragmatic approach while dealing with the cases<\/p>\n
which arise out of the matrimonial acrimony between the<\/p>\n
husband and wife. This fact has also to be kept in mind in the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
\n
12.     To attract Section 120-B<\/a> IPC it is to be shown that two or<\/p>\n
more persons agree to do an illegal act or an act which is not<\/p>\n
illegal by illegal means.     In this case, neither the FIR was<\/p>\n
registered under Section 120-B<\/a> IPC nor any investigation in this<\/p>\n
direction was carried out nor it was alleged in the charge-sheet<\/p>\n
that petitioner and respondent no. 3 had entered into a criminal<\/p>\n
conspiracy to dishonestly misappropriate or convert to their own<\/p>\n
use the Sony Handycam and the alleged cheques.                  Still<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, without assigning any reasons, has<\/p>\n
ordered for framing of charge against the petitioner under<\/p>\n
Section 406<\/a> IPC by taking aid of Section 120-B<\/a> IPC.<\/p>\n
13.     For the foregoing reasons, in my view, Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge was not right in holding that a, prima facie, case is made<\/p>\n
out against the petitioner under Section 406<\/a> read with Section
\nCrl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                              Page 13 of 14<\/span>
\n 120-B IPC<\/a>.         The impugned order, thus, suffers from manifest<\/p>\n
illegality and perversity requiring interference of this court in<\/p>\n
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of<\/p>\n
justice.\n<\/p>\n
\n
14.     In view of the above discussions, present petition is allowed<\/p>\n
and impugned order directing framing of charge against the<\/p>\n
petitioner for offences under Sections 406<\/a> read with 120-B IPC<\/a> is<\/p>\n
set aside. Consequently, charge framed against the petitioner by<\/p>\n
the Metropolitan Magistrate on 22nd January, 2011 under<\/p>\n
Section 406<\/a> read with Section 120-B<\/a> IPC is also quashed.<\/p>\n
                                                A.K. PATHAK, J.\n<\/p>\n
\nMAY 20, 2011
\nrb<\/p>\n
Crl. Rev. P. No. 117\/2011                                 Page 14 of 14<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011 Author: A. K. Pathak IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.PET. NO. 117\/2011 Judgment reserved on 16th March, 2011 % Judgment delivered on 20th May, 2011 SHRI VARUN SHARMA (CARLAY) ….PETITIONER Through: Mr. Tanveer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-18T01:56:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T01:56:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3484,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T01:56:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-18T01:56:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T01:56:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011"},"wordCount":3484,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011","name":"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T01:56:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-varun-sharma-carlay-vs-the-state-nct-delhi-ors-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Varun Sharma (Carlay) vs The State (Nct, Delhi) & Ors. on 20 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}