DILIP KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order dated 6.10.2010 passed on the complaint of the revisionist under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short the Code) by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983), Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as Special Judge) whereby the learned Special Judge issued process against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 323 IPC and not under Section 394/397 I.P.C as prayed.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case in brief, as is necessary for adjudication of the present revision is that the revisionist-complainant instituted a complaint under Chapter XV of the Code, in the Court of Special Judge with the allegations that his marriage with the Respondent No. 3 was performed about four years back; that the Respondent No. 3, however, deserted him and consequently she left for her parental home. The allegation further is that she thereafter embarked upon criminal proceedings against the complainant alleging that the complainant ill-treated and subjected her to cruelty and also harassed her with a view to coercing her to fulfill his dowry demand. The dispute was however reconciled in a ''Panchayat' convened between the relatives of both the sides. It was agreed mutually that the Respondent No. 3 would resume her married life with the complainant. In terms of re-conciliation so arrived at between both the sides- on 25.2.2009 at about 2.00 p.m. the complainant arrived at the residence of the Respondent No. 2 to bring back his wife (the Respondent No. 3). The allegation further is that the Respondent No. 2 along with remaining Respondents (except Respondent No. 1) had snatched money, mobile-phone, and ornaments etc. from the complainant on gun-point. They also gave beating to the complainant with sticks. On his failure to get the FIR lodged at the concerned police station, the complainant took recourse to filing complaint under Chapter XV of the Code in the Court of Special Judge. The Special Court recorded statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and the witnesses and took cognizance under Section 323 I.P.C only. The Special Court further transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate concerned for trial, as the Special Court was of the view that ex-facie, no scheduled offence appears to have been committed by the Respondents No. 2 to 5.

(3.) Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved, the complainant/revisionist has preferred the instant revision.