Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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