M KHADERVALI Vs. S HAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in CFR 20/92 on the file of the learned I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah, who is the revision petitioner in Crl.Rev. Petition No. 28/92 on the file of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying this Court to quash the order of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah dated 30-5-1995 made in Crl.R.P.No. 28/92 and to direct the I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah to take cognizance of the complaint filed by him in CFR No. 20/92 to secure ends of justice.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under. The petitioner is the maternal uncle of the first accused in Cr.No. 33 of 1991 on the file of the I Town P.S., Cuddapah, which was subsequently registered as C.C.No. 191 of 1991 on the file of the I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah. A-2 is the daughter of A-1. A-2 married Basheer Ahamed on 28-2-1990. A-3 is the son of A-1. A-4 and A-5 are brothers-in-law of A-l. A-6 is the distant relative of A1l. A-l gave a complaint to 7th respondent against Basheer Ahamed and his parents who are A-l to A-3 in C.C.No. 74 of 1995 on the file of the Mobile Magistrate, Cuddapah alleging that on demand by the accused therein, he paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of dowry to them and jewellary and house-hold articles. On that complaint, after verification, case was registered as calendar case. The petitioner herein gave a Police complaint on 13-3-1991 alleging that the respondents-accused herein have committed the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act (the Act). Thereafter when the Police did not take any action, he sent a reminder on 19-12-1991 to take action against the accused. Therefore, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the I Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Cuddapah. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. holding that the petitioner is not an eye-witness for giving the dowry and there is no sufficient ground to proceed with the case. He also further held that the complainant had no wi tnesses. The learned Magistrate further held that the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. is no evidence by itself. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner carried the matter in revision (Crl. R.P.No. 28 of 1992) before the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. In that Crl.Revision Petition, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No. 119 of 1995 to receive copy of FIR in Cr.No. 33/91; copy of charge-sheet in C.C. No. 191/91 and copy of M.C. 4/91 as additional evidence. The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, after perusing the record and hearing the learned Counsel for either side, held that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order under revision and dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Against that the present petition is filed.

(3.) Before going into merits it is necessary to extract Sections of the Act which is to the following effect.