KANCHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am apprised by the counsel that by filing the typed copy of the hand written matter, he has cured the concerned default. In such premises, it is held that such default raised by the office has been cured. Heard on IA No.5141/11 applicant's application for condoning the delay in filing the revision as the same is filed barred by 45 days. For the reasons stated in it and also taking into consideration that this revision is filed on behalf of the minor, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out to condone the alleged delay, hence by allowing the IA, the same is condoned and this revision is taken- up for admission. Heard on the question of admission. On behalf of the applicant/accused her guardian Ram Sagar Pawar has preferred this revision under section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act,2000 (in short `the Act') read with section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the Principal Judge of Juvenile Court, Chhindwara in Cr.C.No.46/10 whereby such court has taken over the cognizance of the offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of the IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant. In this revision prayer for quashment and setting aside the aforesaid order dated 16.4.2010 has been made.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on giving a report in writing by one Smt. Poonam w/o said Ram Sagar to Station House Officer of P.S Pandhurna, after making some preliminary inquiry, the crime No.35/10 was registered against the applicant and her guardian Ram Sagar for the offence under section 498-A/34 of the IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per the averments of the report in writing as well as the FIR, the complainant Poonam, subsequent to her marriage, whenever resided with Ram Sagar, with whom being his niece, the present applicant was also residing, she was subject to physical and mental torture by the present applicant and said Ram Sagar. It is also stated that in the year 2008, she was also beaten by the applicant and said Ram Sagar and in further averments of the FIR, the allegations of using abusive language, beating and demand of dowry were also made. On recording the interrogatory statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses, namely, Dhanraj, Laxmi Bai, Bheemrao, Phalwati, Rajaram, they also supported the story putforth by the complainant in the FIR. On completion of the investigation, the applicant and her uncle, the husband of the complainant, was charge-sheeted for the above-mentioned offence. As the applicant is minor, therefore, against her, the charge sheet has been filed in the Juvenile Court.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the FIR along with the report given in writing by the complainant to the police station and also the interrogatory statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After going through the same, not only in the FIR or the report in writing but in the interrogatory statements of the witnesses whose names are mentioned above, I have found sufficient prima facie ingredients of the offence defined and made punishable under section 498-A of the IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, it is held that the presiding officer of the Juvenile Court has not committing any error in taking the cognizance in the matter against the applicant under section 190 of the Cr.P.C. In such premises, this revision does not have any merits even for admission and resultantly the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing itself.