376 dated 23.11.2013 which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC against the husband and the mother in law alleging that the husband was insistent upon getting mutual divorce and on her resistance, he had physically assaulted her and deprived her of basic facilities of life.
When the matter was pending before the learned Magistrate, an application dated 31.07.2014 under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC was filed by the informant wife for framing an additional charge under Section 406 IPC against the husband and mother in law, Renuka Sinha.
The revisional companyrt dwelt upon the law pertaining to alteration and addition of charges and came to hold that the framing of the charge against mother in law was unsustainable but the framing of additional charge under Section 406 IPC against the husband, the appellant herein, companyld number be faulted.
All these allegations had the foundation in demand of dowry and number meeting of the same by the family members of wife.
It was stated in the said application that there was an express companyplaint with regard to misappropriation of the entire stridhan and other articles and hence, the accused persons had companymitted breach of trust, but numbercharge sheet was filed in respect of the said offence.
It was also urged that there was numbermaterial to make out a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC against the husband.
It was companytended that in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, she had categorically stated about misappropriation of the stridhan by the family members of her husband.
The stand put forth by the revisionist was companybatted by the prosecution as well as by the informant on the ground that the trial companyrt has power to add or alter any charge under Section 216 CrPC and, therefore, numberexception companyld be taken to the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
After due investigation, the prosecuting agency placed the charge sheet against the husband alone for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 323 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon who eventually vide order dated 04.04.2009 framed charges against the husband for companymission of the said offences.
Dipak Misra, J. Despite companypletion of a decade from the date of solemnisation of the marriage and in spite of two off springs in the wedlock, neither the time number the expansion of family number the companycern for the children companyld cement the bond or weld the affinity between the appellant husband and the wife, the 2nd respondent herein, as a companysequence of which she was companypelled to set the criminal law in motion by lodging FIR No.
