NIMISH S AGARWAL Vs. RUHI AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision is filed against the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 54/2019 whereby the revision filed by respondent No.1 has been admitted and passed order for staying the proceedings pending before the Magistrate in criminal complaint No. 382/2019.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging that complainant Nimish Agrawal got married with respondent No.1 Ruhi Agrawal on 16.10.2017 according to Hindu rituals and out of the wedlock, one daughter was born namely Nirvana Nimish Rai, now aged about 5 1/2 years old. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 lodged a complaint at police station Supela against the applicant and his family members as Crime No. 415/2016. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg for the offence under Sections 498- A, 377, 376 and 323/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the FIR and statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 has stated that at the time of marriage, the applicant and his family members had demanded Rs. 2.5 crores and Rs. 60,00,000/- as dowry, which was deposited in the bank account of the applicant. Respondent No.1 has admitted that there was a demand of dowry and they have paid the said amount towards the demand. It is further stated that in the matter arising out of Domestic Violence Act, filed by respondent No.1 it has been admitted that they have paid the amount towards dowry therefore, the applicant has filed complaint against the respondents. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 04.01.2019 had registered a complaint against the respondents and issued summons for their appearance. Against this order, respondent No.1 filed revision before the Sessions Judge, Durg and the revision filed by the respondents was admitted, proceedings were stayed by order impugned dated 08.02.19. Hence this revision filed by the applicant (complainant).

(3.) Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. It is therefore liable to be set aside and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 04.01.2019 is a well reasoned order which has been passed on the basis of material and evidence as adduced by the applicant. Thereafter, complaint has been registered against the respondents. It is submitted that no irregularity can be pointed out in the order of the Magistrate but the impugned order is not a speaking order and does not record any reason for granting stay of the proceedings. The order of the Magistrate i.e. registration of complaint and issuance of summons are not revisable and no interim relief can be granted without hearing the complainant. The respondents are not entitled for any interim relief. In the light of Iris Computers Limited Vs. Askari Infortech Private Limited and Others, Hon'ble Apex court has held that the revision before the learned sessions Judge was not maintainable. The learned Sessions Judge while passing the stay order, has not recorded any prima facie case and has granted stay which is not permissible under the law. The scope of revision is very limited and the Sessions Judge cannot grant interim relief just because the revision has been admitted for hearing. The order of issuance of process cannot be taken lightly. The respondents have not challenged the complaint itself but have challenged the order of issuance of process. So the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary,. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicant in the matter of Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2008 9 SCC 140; K.M.Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and Another, 1992 1 SCC 217 and Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others, 2004 7 SCC 338.