CHHOTELAL @ CHHOTE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard both the sides.

(2.) A charge under Section 498-A and the another charge under Section 304-B IPC has been framed against the applicant by the impugned order passed by the Court below. The order of the Court below does not indicate any fact regarding the date of marriage and the time elapsed between the date of marriage and the date of incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to document D/4 which is the statement of the father of the girl recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. In the opening part of that statement, the father has stated that the marriage took place about 10-12 years earlier, and that the deceased girl joined her matrimonial home 3-4 years earlier.

(3.) For constituting an offence under Section 304- B, the time between the date of marriage and the date of incident is relevant and not the time between the date of the girl joining her matrimonial home (which is known as 'Gawna' in colloquial. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision the learned Single Judge in the case of Satyanarain and others v. State of M P,2006 1 JabLJ 231 for the above proposition. In the circumstances, the charge as framed by the impugned order is quashed. The matter will be re- examined by the trial Court.