RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been preferred by the accused -petitioners against an order dated 9th August 2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 482/2012 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Joura district Morena (M.P.) framing thereby charges against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case, just for the decision of this revision petition are that petitioner No. 3 -Mohar Singh was married to respondent No. 2 Anita Singh on 11th February 2009 at Joura district Morena. It is stated that the father of the respondent No. 2 -Anita offered Cash, gold ornaments and other household property to the bridegroom, but after marriage the car as promised could not be gifted to the bridegroom. This was the reason that for the demand of the car or cost of the same, the respondent No. 2 was harassed and treated with cruelty by her in -laws. She was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. At present, she is residing with her parents at Tikamgarh. In such circumstances, the written complaint was sent by her to family settlement Centre of the District Morena but the matrimonial dispute could not be settled despite due efforts. Consequently, the FIR was lodged against the petitioners/accused. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the court competent in which the trial is under progress.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that after filing the petition of divorce by the husband -petitioner No. 3 and on service of notice, she forwarded a written complaint on the basis of which, an FIR against the petitioners was lodged by the police. It is submitted by the counsel that the respondent No. 2 is serving as contract teacher as class -1 at Banda district Tikamgarh and is residing with her parents at Tikamgarh. She voluntarily deserted the petitioner No. 3 and also misbehaved him and his family members. It is denied that any cruelty in connection with the non -fulfillment of promise was meted out to the respondent/wife. It is thus submitted that no such treatment as alleged was given either by her husband or her in -laws and a false FIR has been registered against the petitioners. Hence, it is prayed that the order passed by the trial court framing alleged charge against the petitioners is liable to be set aside and the revision deserves to be allowed.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the copies of charge -sheet papers and the law on which the petitioners tried to place emphasis in support of his arguments.