NEETENDRA RAJSINGH CHHABRA Vs. AMARJEET KOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/accused has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 19.4.11 passed by the IInd ASJ, Dewas in Cr.R.No.29/11 affirming the order dated 18.3.11 passed by the JMFC, Dewas in private complaint Case No.476/08, filed by the respondent, framing the charge against the applicant for the offence of section 498-A of the IPC. It is noted that the aforesaid charge has been framed by the trial court after recording the before charge evidence under section 244 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the respondent herein got married with the applicant as per the rites and rituals of the Hindu religion (Sikh religion) on dated 13.6.04 and subsequent to that on account of differences and other reasons stated in the complaint filed in the trial court, under compulsion, the respondent came back to her parental home and is residing with them since 5.10.04. The respondent herein gave a report in writing to the police on dated 2.3.05 contending that she was given cruel treatment with beating by the applicant and his family members. On the basis of such report a Crime No.215/05 was registered against the applicant and his family members at Police Station Kotwali, Dewas for the offence under section 498 and 323 of the IPC. In the course of investigation of such crime, the applicant herein filed M.Cr.C.No.1937/05 under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR and investigation on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of such police station and also that the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out from the FIR itself. Such petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.9.05 with a direction to the police to examine the matter on aforesaid both the questions and take appropriate steps. Pursuant to that order, the police has filed a final report under section 169 of the Cr.P.C and closed the matter. Subsequent to this, the respondent herein filed a private complaint on 17.6.06 in the Court of CJM Dewas against the applicant and his other family members with a prayer to take cognizance against all of them for the offence under section 498-A and 323 of the IPC. After adopting the procedure provided under section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C, vide order dated 28.2.2008 the CJM had taken the cognizance in the matter only against the applicant for the offence of section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'the Act') while the cognizance of section 498-A of the I.P.C was not taken by such Court on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of such Court because the alleged incident was found to be happened within the territorial jurisdiction of some other Court.

(3.) The aforesaid order taking the cognizance of section 4 of the Act was challenged by the applicant herein under section 482 of the Cr.P.C in M.Cr.C No.4615/08. On consideration such petition was decided vide order dated 6.2.09 whereby the applicant was extended the liberty to file the fresh application stating all the grounds and objections before the trial court and such court was directed to decide such application afresh. Pursuant to that an application dated 25.2.09 was filed on behalf of the applicant in the trial court. On consideration such application was dismissed by such Court on dated 17.3.09. It is noted that such interim order dated 17.3.09 has not been separately challenged by the applicant herein except in the present petition or in the impugned revision. Subsequent to it on dated 18.3.11 considering the recorded before charge evidence (which was recorded during pendency of the aforesaid litigation at different forum) holding that the ingredients of the offence of section 4 of the Act are not made out for framing such charge, but the ingredients of the offence of section 498-A are made out from such evidence and pursuant to that the charge of section 498-A of the IPC was framed against the applicant. He abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order filed the revision before the subordinate revisional court. On consideration, the same was dismissed by the revisional court. Thereafter, the applicant has come forward to this court with this revision.