HARIJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 31-10-2000 passed by the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, in Criminal Revision No. 101 of 2000 (R) is assailed in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner filed a written complaint before the Golmuri Police Station at Jameshedpur on 2-9-1994 against her husband (the respondent No. 2) and his other relatives. On the said complaint, Golmuri P.S. Case No. 172/94 was registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1971. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. However, Dr. (Mrs.) Snehlata Mukherjee was not sent for trial against whom it was alleged by the complainant that she was aborted at the nursing home of the said doctor. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19-11-94 took cognizance under Sections 498-A, 313 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of theDowry Prohibition Act, 1971 and discharged the accused Dr. (Mrs.) Snehlata Mukherjee. The remaining accused filed an application on 15-5-1995 to delete Section 313 of the IPC from the charge-sheet as no case was made out for the said offence. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 1-9-1995, allowed the application and the charge against the accused under Section 313 of the IPC was deleted. The petitioner did not challenge either order dated 19-11-1994 discharging Dr. (Mrs.) Snehlata Mukherjee or the order dated 1-9-1995 discharging the accused for offence under Section 313 of the IPC. On 12-2-1998, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to proceed for the trial of the accused under Section 313 of the IPC. The said application was dismissed on 17-7-1998 against which order a Criminal Revision Petition No. 303/98 (R) was preferred by the petitioner before the High Court. The High Court disposed the said Revision Petition in the following terms :-

(3.) Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, having already recorded evidence of two witnesses, continued the trial and recorded the evidence of six more witnesses. In compliance with the directions given by the High Court as extracted above, he passed a detailed order on 16-3-2000 holding that it was not necessary to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and posted the case for recording the statements of the accused. It is this order, which was challenged before the High Court and the High Court, by the impugned order dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.