BABITA Vs. SANDIP RAI THAKUMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISIONIST Is permitted to proceed with the revision without certified copy of the order of the Magistrate relying upon the true copy already filed.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the order of the Magistrate and judgment of the lower revisional court. What appears is that revisionist Babita is wife of opposite party No.1 Sandip Rai Thakural. Opposite party No. 2 Raghunath Rai Thakural is her father-in-law and opp. Party No. 3 Smt. Savita Rani Thakural is her mother-in-law. Unfortunately, after her marriage revisionist could not be happy. She went to her father's house. Her father sent application to different authorities. Ultimately, one of her applica­tions was treated as first Information Report. There were two investigations and ultimately the Investigating Officer submitted final report. A counsel was engaged on behalf of the revisionist who opposed the final report before the Magis­trate, Learned Magistrate did not accept the final report. He took cognizance and summoned the opposite parties for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Being aggrieved, opposite parties went up in revision before the Sessions Judge. He went through the case diary. He relied upon certain statements and found that the final report was justified. He, therefore allowed the revision and set aside the summoning order: passed by the Magistrate.

(3.) IT is unfortunate that .Section 498-A I.P.C., which was introduced in the principal Code by Criminal Law Amendment Act (46 of 1983). 1983 got much publicity while Section 198-A Cr.P.C. introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code by the same Criminal Law Amendment Act was not noted. This section permits cognizance of offence punishable under Section 498-A only on a police report' of facts which constitute such an offence or upon a com­plaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by father's or mother's brother or sister, or with the leave of the court, by any other person related to her by blood marriage or adoption. According to Section 2 (r) Cr. P.C. Police report is a report under Section 173. (2) which is locally called charge sheet. It is evident that in the instant case there was a final report and not a charge sheet. Hence there was no police report contemplated by Section 198-A before the Magistrate Counsel appeared on behalf of the revisionist and opposed the final report. Magistrate could have treated it as oral complaint and could have required the counsel of the revisionist to submit list of witnesses. After examining the revisionist under Section 200 and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate could have summoned the opposite parties as is usually done in a complaint case:,. But the learned Magistrate did not treat the oral prayer made by the counsel of the revisionist as complaint. He only went through the papers in the Case Diary and summoned the opposite parties. It becomes obvious that he took cognizance of the case without a police report or a complaint. It becomes further obvious that the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (c) Cr.P.C. In view of Section 198-A that course was not open to the Magistrate.