VIMLA Vs. BABITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife has filed a complaint against her husband and in-Jaws under sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. in connection with her Stridhan. The Magistrate passed following order on it as appears from Annexure 2. Seen the complaint, the matter requires thorough investigation, what is only possible thing. Police, S.O./S.H.O. Kotwali is directed to register the case and investigate: It seems as if the above order has not been correctly given in the true copy. Anyway the substance is clear that the Magistrate directed the police to investigate the matter. Against it the husband and in laws have filed this application under section 482 Cr. P.C. They say that the aforesaid order of the Magistrate dated 18-4-1987 and the complaint which is Annexure 1 should be quashed.

(2.) The complaint discloses a case the question at this stage is not whether there is any truth in the allegation made, but the question is whether on the basis of the allegation an offence has been alleged to have been committed. The complaint does show that Stridhan of the wife has been misappropriated and she has been maltreated for dowry. So there is no ground for quashing the complaint J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar.

(3.) The next argument is that the Magistrate could not have directed the police to investigate and it being a complaint he should have proceeded under Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code which contains sections 200 to 203. The argument of the State counsel is that the Magistrate could have directed investigation under section 156(3) Cr. P.C.