RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the present applicant Ravindra Singh against the respondents accused Manoj Singh son of Raja Singh in the court of A.C.M.M.II, Kanpur Nagar being miscellaneous application No.61/2006. The offences alleged in the aforesaid application were under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. The said application has been rejected by the Magistrate and this application to quash the said order of rejection dated 15.2.06.

(2.) The encapsulated facts were that the daughter of the applicants, namely, Garima was married with the accused Manoj Singh son of Raja Singh on 8.6.05. After the said marriage, the accused namely Manoj Singh, Raja Singh, Neha and Chandan Singh started demanding Rs. 75,000/- more as dowry. As the applicant was unable to satisfy the said dowry demand his daughter, namely, Garima was subjected to torture and cruelty at the hands of the accused persons. Many endeavours by the applicant were made but all of them failed and the torture continued. On 16.1.06 at 4.00 P.M. the aforesaid named accused persons assaulted Garima severely with dandas. On hue and cry having been raised by Garima the neighbours intervened into the matter and saved her from being beaten. Garima left her Sasural and came to her parental house and narrated the whole incident to the applicant The ornaments, clothes and Rs. 50,000/- all of which belonged to Garima were gaily snatched away by the accused persent On the said factual matrix the applicant an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C as mentioned aforesaid, before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Along with the said application the applicant appended his affidavit with the identical contents. The affidavit of the daughter Smt. Garima Singh as well as affidavit of Amar Singh Sengar was also appended along with the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The applicant also attached the injury report of Smt. Garima. which indicated that she had received four injuries on her person and was assaulted by respondents. The A.C.M.M -II, Kanpur Nagar vide impugned order dated 15.2.06 rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the applicant is in the knowledge of all the face and therefore, he can file a complaint. The said order dated 15.2.06 is under challenge in the present criminal miscellaneous application.

(3.) Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. at a great length and 1 have perused the record.