MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 9-7-2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi directing the Station Officer, P. S. Gurusarai, District Jhansi to initiate a proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. against the petitioner and the order of the Revisional Court dated 20-7-2002 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner lodged a report against Smt. Savitri Devi, Halkey Ram, Akhilesh Ram and Kusuma Devi in-laws of his daughter Laxmi Devi with the allegation that marriage of Laxmi Devi was performed on 4-12-1998 with Shiv Kumar S/o Ram Sahai. After the marriage her in-laws started demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and on refusal to pay the above dowry they started treating his daughter with cruelty. Thereafter, they also committed her dowry death on 20-6-2002 by burning her. On the above report a case at Crime No. 273 of 2002, under Section 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused of the said case. During investigation the accused of the case namely Halkey Ram, Kushuma Devi and Akhilesh Ram were arrested by the police and were sent to judicial custody till 9-7-2002. On 9-7-2002 the Investigating Officer of the case submitted report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. that there was no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused for further judicial custody. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the above report and released the above accused on filing of personal bonds of Rs. 5,000/- each and also directed the S.O. concerned to initiate a proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. against the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision against the said order dated 9-7-2002. The Revisional Court held that the report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. was accepted by the learned Magistrate and final report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and there is no requirement of giving any notice to the petitioner before initiating proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. With these findings it dismissed the revision vide order dated 30-7-2002.