Ghaziabad: A sessions court has dismissed a revision petition filed by an NRI couple based in Germany, Ankit and Silky Jain, seeking to be discharged from a dowry harassment case in which they are named as co-accused.The case, filed by Ankit’s sister-in-law Urvarshi on Aug 26, 2020, named him and Silky, besides her husband Abhishek, father-in-law Sushil Kumar and mother-in-law Archana, under IPC sections 498A (matrimonial cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (criminal force with the intent to outrage the modesty of a woman), 377 (unnatural intercourse), 504 (intimidation to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Police later dropped Ankit and Silky’s names, citing insufficient evidence, and also found the charges under IPC sections 354 and 377 against the others unsubstantiated. IPC section 406 (criminal breach of trust) was subsequently added, and a chargesheet that was eventually filed included this and sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506, besides Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.After the lower court framed charges on Oct 20, 2022, Urvarshi moved an application under Section 319 CrPC (power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence), alleging that Ankit and Silky had conspired with the investigating officer to have their names dropped from the chargesheet.In her examination before the trial court, Urvarshi said she married Abhishek on Nov 9, 2019, in a wedding costing Rs 50-55 lakh, after which her in-laws, including Ankit and Silky, who were visiting for the ceremony, pressured her for dowry.After a magistrate’s court framed charges on Oct 20, 2022, Urvarshi moved an application under Section 319 CrPC (power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence), alleging Ankit and Silky had conspired with the investigating officer to have their names dropped from the chargesheet. In her examination before the trial court, Urvarshi claimed she married Abhishek on Nov 9, 2019, in a wedding that cost Rs 50-55 lakh, after which her in-laws, including Ankit and Silky, who were visiting for the ceremony, pressured her for dowry.The couple argued they had been living in Germany and had no role in the alleged offences, but the court noted that the couple stayed for over a month and summoned them for trial in its Feb 25, 2025 order. Subsequently, Ankit and Silky filed a criminal revision petition before the sessions court.In their plea, Ankit and Silky contended they never lived with Urvarshi except during the wedding, and pointed to contradictions in her FIR, police statement and court testimony. They called her allegations malicious.Additional Sessions Judge Neeraj Gautam cited a Supreme Court precedent on the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and held that the lower court’s order showed no legal error warranting interference. “The object of the provisions of revision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law,” the court said.A revision petition, the court added, could be invoked where the “decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the findings recorded are based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely”.It summoned the couple for a trial under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
