DEBASHISH DHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ratnesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. F.A.Usmani, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the Court below as well as proceedings of the Case No. 3981 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 201/2004, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, District Lucknow, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Lucknow. By the order impugned dated 22.5.2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence on the basis of chargesheet filed in the case. The petitioner's case is that the said chargesheet is based on the concocted and false story narrated in the First Information Report as well as in the statement of witnesses.

(2.) The acrimony developed between them due to the reason that opposite party No.3 was found involved having physical intimacy with one petitioner's senior Officer. The petitioner made a complaint to the Air Officer Administration for taking disciplinary action against erring Officer. The respondent No.3 admitted her guilt. Despite that they did not reconcile their relationship as husband and wife, therefore, the respondent No.3 left him and turned back to Lucknow to reside with her parents on 13.5.2003. She also represented to Superior Officer of petitioner's department-2- for awarding maintenance for her and son. In turn the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.5,400/- was sanctioned to her by deducting from petitioner's salary. She, in the month of January 2004, has also filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation, which is registered as regular Suit No. 29 of 2004, and is pending consideration. Petitioner has been noticed to said case and is contesting the same. She further filed a suit at the same very time under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is registered as Case No. 7 of 2004. In addition to the aforesaid action in revenge she also lodged First Information Report of December 1998, which is delayed about six years, narrating a false story therein, whereas all her belonging including jewellery are in her custody, which she took away along with her in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ms. Deepa Banerji and Sudha Murgai, the receipts are on record. In the FIR the place of occurrence is narrated as Ambala and Dehradoon, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of U.P. Thus the petitioner has challenged the proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction also.

(3.) The petitioner has brought on record the statement of her parents, which maximum made out the case against the petitioner for compelling respondent No.3 to leave his house but it does not make any case of dowry demand. Once the case was investigated and since no evidence was found against the petitioner for commission of any such offence, police submitted a Final Report. However, the Circle Officer directed to further investigate the case. Accordingly, after further investigation a charge-sheet was submitted on 02.4.2008.