Ashutosh Kumar JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. Both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order.
2. The Petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 1758/2010 are sisters of the husband of Respondent no. 2.
3. On the case lodged by Respondent no. 2 against them and other accused persons including their brother and others (FIR No. 651/2001 dated 11.08.2001, PS Malviya Nagar, instituted under sections 498A/406/420/494/327/506/34 IPC), they were chargesheeted on 09.04.2004.
4. The petitioners, by order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, were charged under section 120B IPC.
5. The brother of the petitioners (husband of the Respondent no. 2) was charged for offences under section 498A/494/120B IPC.
6. The petitioners were discharged for other offences for which they were chargesheeted. Some of the accused persons namely the parents and brother of the second wife of K.D. Kapoor (the husband of Respondent no. 2) and the second wife (Smt. Poonam, petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. No. 254/2010) were discharged of all offences.
7. The Petitioners, against the aforesaid order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Learned MM, preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge 1/South, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (Crl. Rev. No. 284/2009). The order by which the petitioners were charged under section 120B IPC was upheld in the revision petition by order dated 02.03.2010.
8. The order of the learned MM, whereby the second wife of K.D. Kapoor (husband of the Respondent no. 2) was discharged of all offences, was modified and the second wife (Smt. Poonam, petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. No. 254/2010) was also directed by the Revisional Court to be charged for the offence under section 120B IPC.
9. The aforesaid revisional order dated 02.03.2010 is under challenge in both the petitions.
10. In order to appreciate the contention of the Petitioners, it would be necessary to refer to the first information report ('FIR' for short) lodged by the Respondent no. 2. It has been alleged by Respondent no. 2 that after her marriage with K.D. Kapoor, her husband, on 07.05.1985 she stayed in the matrimonial home till 12.06.2001. During this period she was tortured by her husband, her three sisters- in-law (Petitioners in Crl. M.C. No. 1758/2010) and her late mother in law. In the year 1992, one Poonam, who was introduced as a distant cousin, also joined hands with the accused persons in harassing and troubling her.
11. Aforesaid Poonam (Petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. 254/2010) is alleged to be the second wife of the husband of the Respondent no. 2. It has been specifically averred by the Respondent no. 2 that her sisters-in-law and Poonam visited the matrimonial home of Respondent no. 2 and suggested the Respondent no. 2 to allow her husband to get married and beget children. Such a suggestion was stoutly refused by Respondent no. 2, considering it to be the high point of cruelty perpetrated upon her. Any suggestion of Respondent no. ........