BHAGIRATHI DEVI & ANOTHER Vs. STATE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petition­ers to quash/set aside the order dated 28.04.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No.271 of 2000 and to discharge the petitioners from the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) I.P.C. & 109 I.P.C.

(2.) IN nutshell, on 14.02.2000 com­plainant Dan Singh Samant (respondent no. 2) filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh against the petitioners alleg­ing therein that on 11.02.2000 a matri­monial case between the parties was fixed before the District Judge, Pithoragarh and after hearing the par­ties the District Judge directed the parties that Smt. Chandrakala Bist - daugh­ter of the complainant (respondent no.3) be sent to her matrimonial house. Pur­suant to this, the complainant took his daughter to her matrimonial house. As soon as they reached her matrimonial house petitioner no.2-Laxman Singh also reached his house. Accused-Laxman Singh instigated his mother-Bhagirathi Devi. Consequently, Bhagirathi Devi as­saulted the complainant and his daugh­ter with 'kicks' and 'fist'. Bhagirathi Devi used filthy language and hurled abuses upon them. The complainant and his daughter were also threatened by Bhagirathi Devi that if they would come there again they would be killed. After recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate took cognizance against both the petitioners. Thereafter, the trial proceeded as a war­rant trial. The complainant adduced himself as PW1 and his daughter Smt. Chandrakala Bist as PW2 under section 244 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned coun­sel for the accused pleaded that petition­ers be discharged as no prima facie case is made out from the evidence adduced by the complainant party. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate directed to frame the charge against Bhagirathi Devi under sections 323, 504, 506(2) I.P.C. and against Laxman Singh under section 109 I.P.C. vide order dated 28.01.2001. Feeling aggrieved to this, the petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 24.05.2002 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.