NARITA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The opposite party No. 2, who is married with revisionist No. 2, filed a complaint against the revisionists for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 406, I.P.C. which is Case No. 1099 of 1998, pending before IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. After evidence under Section 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. all the revisionists were summoned to stand trial for above offences. The revisionists moved an application to recall the summoning order and to discharge them. That application has been rejected by the order dated 25.1.2000 by IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, before whom the complaint is pending. Aggrieved by it the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Sushil Shukla learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

(3.) THE next argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the complaint has been filed with false allegations and is mala fide. That the revisionist No. 2, had already filed a divorce suit against opposite party No. 2 on 2.11.1998. That thereafter the present complaint was filed on 9.11.1998. It is further contended that the opposite party No. 2, herself left the house and at that time she gave in writing that she is taking her entire clothes and ornament in three suitcases, which is Annexure-1. It is also contended that this memo has also been attested by the father of the opposite party No. 2. That therefore, the opposite party No. 2 has taken all the clothes and ornaments and articles of her streedhan in three suitcases. That therefore, there is no embezzlement by the revisionists. It is therefore, contended that the complaint is mala fide and it has been filed in retaliation of the divorce suit filed against the opposite party No. 2.