MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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

Similar News