Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge of Respondents in Marital Harassment Case, Orders Re-Examination of Prosecution Witnesses

Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, has upheld the discharge of respondents No. 2 and 3 in a case involving allegations of marital harassment and dowry demands. However, the Court has set aside the orders relating to the dropping and discharge of prosecution witnesses, directing their re-examination.

The case, registered as FIR No. 130/2012 at Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi, pertains to allegations made by petitioner Bhawna Grover against her husband’s family, including respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioner accused them of substantial dowry demands and continuous harassment post her marriage in 2001.

Justice Sharma, in her judgment, noted, “It is unbelievable that despite the order being uploaded on the website of the district court concerned, and despite petitioner and her counsel being present before the learned Mahila Court on several dates, she was not aware as to what order on charge had been passed in the present case.” This observation was made in reference to the delay in challenging the order discharging respondents No. 2 and 3.

Justice Sharma stated, “The victim has a right to prove the contents of the complaints and the fact that complaints were made with certain content on certain dates, which may be crucial to prove her case during the course of trial.” This statement highlights the court’s emphasis on ensuring a fair trial and the proper presentation of evidence.

The Court also addressed the grievances regarding the handling of prosecution witnesses. The judgment reads, “The victim has a right to prove the contents of the complaints and the fact that complaints were made with certain content on certain dates, which may be crucial to prove her case during the course of trial.” Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 29.03.2023, which had erroneously dropped two prosecution witnesses and discharged PW-2 without a reasonable cause.

Date of Decision: 30.01.2024

BHAWNA GROVER VS STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Download Judgment

Share: