SHAIKH SAGEER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Accused has filed this Misc. Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for short), to set aside the impugned order dated 24.6.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Harda, District Harda (MP), in S.T.No.32/2019, whereby learned Sessions Judge Framed charges against the petitioner/accused under Sections 294, 323, 506-II, 377, 498-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity).

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that marriage of complainant Saba Khan was solemnized with petitioner/accused in the year 1999 and during the said wedlock, they were blessed with four children. After the marriage, petitioner/accused tortured and humiliated her. Petitioner/accused was living separately from her wife complainantSaba Khan. On 30.9.2018, when she was standing in front of the house of one Mustafa, then petitioner/accused reached there, abused her in filthy language. Petitioner/accused told her that she has illicit relations with said Mustafa and thereafter, he started to beat her. Complainant lodged report due to fear of petitioner/accused. Thereafter, on 30.10.2018, she lodged report against petitioner/accused. On the basis of said report, FIR was registered against the petitioner/accused in the concerned Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, she lodged a written complaint on 5.3.2019 in which she alleged that the petitioner/accused tortured, humiliated her and also committed unnatural sex. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties, framed charge against the petitioner/accused under Sections 294, 323, 506, 377 and 498-A of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the learned Sessions Judge failed to see that the complainant has made false allegations regarding assault and injuries caused by the petitioner/accused. He also failed to see that the complainant has lodged two FIRs against the petitioner/accused. In the absence of any allegation regarding demand of dowry, no offence is made out against the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC. There is no evidence about unnatural intercourse or sex. Complainant-Saba Khan was examined by doctor. The doctor in his medical examination report very clearly denied to have observed any external or internal injury on the complainant, therefore, a bare perusal of FIR and the allegation levelled against the petitioner/accused, it is clearly evident that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner/accused. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused prays for setting aside the impugned order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan Vs. Ram Gopal Paddar and another, 2010 10 SCC 673 and Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another in Cr.A.No.1512 of 2010, decided on 13.8.2010.