RAJESH KUMAR BAGMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Petition arises against the order dated 06. 04. 2004 in Crl. M. P. No. 115 of 2004 in C. C. No. 14285 of 2003 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

(2.) PETITIONERS are accused 1 to 3 and 5 in C. C. No. 14285 of 2003 pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for offences under sections 498a, 406 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Second respondent is the defacto complainant at whose instance the complaint was preferred which culminated into the above calendar case. The complaint was lodged on 20. 08. 2001 by the second respondent wife against the 1st petitioner/ 1st accused/husband and her in-laws for alleged cruelty and demand of dowry. Initially, there was no proper action taken upon her complaint and so, the second respondent/ wife waited till January 2002 to move for a transfer of the investigation from the file of All Women Police Inspector-Mrs. Rajeswari to some other officer. Again on 01. 02. 2002, she wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police complaining inaction. It is only thereafter, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed.

(3.) BASED upon a grievance that no proper investigation was conducted and complaining the fact that although the second respondent's mother and maternal uncle gave statement before the police, their names were not found in the list of prosecution witnesses and apprehending that the prosecution may not be conducted to her satisfaction, this respondent preferred to file a petition under section 302 (2) of Cr. P. C. , for conducting prosecution by herself through her counsel. That was allowed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which is sought to be attacked in this revision.