Posted On by &filed under Criminal Law News, Family Law News.

Sessions court pulls up trial court for perverse order

Sessions court pulls up trial court for perverse order

A sessions court has pulled up a magisterial court for framing of charges against a man in a domestic violence case saying the order is “perverse and cannot be sustained” as on similar allegations his mother has been discharged.

“I wonder how the Metropolitan Magistrate has directed framing of charges against petitioner (man) when allegations against him contained in the complaint are absolutely similar to those levelled against his mother, who has been discharged,” Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhatt said.

It said, “The Magistrate was required to give brief reasons, if not in detail, for coming to conclusion that charges are made out against the petitioner. That has not been done.”

The judge also said that the trial court had “erred” in directing framing of charges against the man, adding that “no offence at all is made out against him from even the minute reading of the complaint and the other material on record.

“The impugned order is perverse and cannot be sustained,” the court said.

It made the observations while allowing the revision petition of the man against the trial court’s April 16 order that had framed charges against him under sections 498A (subjecting wife to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC.

The woman, in her complaint to Crime Against Women cell in 2012, had alleged that she was being beaten and harassed by her husband and in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry.

After alleged repeated harassment incidents, an FIR was lodged in January 2014 against the woman’s husband and mother-in-law.

The sessions court, while setting aside the magisterial court’s order, said, “The impugned order cannot be sustained as there is no specific credible material on record to justify framing of charge against the petitioner.”

The sessions court said that the contents of the woman’s complaint to CAW, “were very vague, general and had unspecified allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment. No specific date is mentioned when the complainant was beaten or harassed with dowry demands”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *