MOHAMMAD GYASUDDIN Vs. JAHANGEER KARANJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dismissing Crl. M.P. No. 3259 of 2002 in C.C. No. 649 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is the subject matter of this petition.

(2.) Private complaint filed by the petitioner against 1st respondent and others, for offences under Sections 420, 498-A read with Section 120-B, IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. for investigation. After investigation the police laid a charge-sheet for offences under Section 498-A read with Section 120-B, IPC against the 1st respondent and others. On a petition filed by the 1st respondent for discharge on the ground that there is no material on record to frame a charge against him i.e. 1st respondent, the learned Magistrate discharged the 1st respondent from the case. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision in Crl. R.P. No. 40 of 2000 before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate discharging 1st respondent from the case and the said order was confirmed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Crl. P. No. 123 of 2002. Thereafter the learned Magistrate framed charges under Section 498-A IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the 1st respondent and the other accused. Thereafter prosecution filed Crl. M.P. No. 3259 of 2002 with a prayer to frame a charge under S. 420, IPC against 1st respondent. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, dismissed the said petition holding that there is no prima facie material to frame a charge under Section 420, IPC against 1st respondent. Questioning the said order, the de facto complainant filed this petition.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the private complaint and the charge sheet filed by the police clearly show that 1st respondent cheated the petitioner and others by concealing the fact that he was a Parsi earlier, and later converted to Islam, the learned Magistrate was in error in dismissing the petition filed by the prosecution to frame a charge under Section 420, IPC. The learned counsel took me through the order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl. R.P. No. 40 of 2000 and the order of the learned single Judge in Crl. P. No. 123 of 2002, and the statements of LWs. 1 and 2 recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and contended that since this Court clearly held in Crl. P. No. 123 of 2002 that the allegation against all the accused is uniform, it is clear that this Court earlier gave a finding that there is prima facie case for offence under Section 420, IPC also against all the accused and so the learned Magistrate ought to have framed charge under Section 420, IPC on the basis of the clear allegations in the complaint filed by the petitioner.