Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Latest Legal News