JAGDISH Vs. SILOCHNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER/accused persons have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order dated 14. 3. 1990 passed by J. M. F. C. , Dewas in Criminal Case No. 1/90 whereby application filed under Sections 177 and 468, Cr. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 1/90 was rejected and the order dated 26. 2. 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, in Crl. Revn. No. 16/90 which confirmed the same.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1 complainant alongwith the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 filed a complaint on 13. 9. 1989 against the petitioners. This complaint was registered for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Sections 498-A and 494,1. P. C. On the first hearing i. e. , on 28. 2. 1990 the petitioner filed an application under Sections 177 and 468, Cr. P. C. alleging that the alleged offences were not committed in the local jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate and the complaint was also barred by time under Section 468, Cr. P. C, therefore, the complaint be dismissed. It was also prayed by the complainant that the parties have settled their disputes amicably out of the Court, therefore, the complainant be allowed to withdraw the complaint. The learned Magistrate after hearing parties dismissed the application vide order dated 14. 3. 1990 holding that the complaint was not barred by Section 468 of the Cr. P. C. and he had jurisdiction to hear the case. The learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of withdrawal on the ground that the offences registered against the petitioners were triable by warrant procedure and there is no provision of withdrawal of the complaint in warrant cases. The petitioners took this matter into revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Crl. Revn. No. 16/90 and confirmed the order passed by the learned J. M. F. C. The petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the Magistrate as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) BOTH the learned Counsel clearly stated that the petitioners and the respondents have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and they have filed the compromise petition in this Court also. Mr. Namdeo, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant stated that he had no objection if the complainant is allowed to withdraw the complaint. However, he stated that the complaint was not barred by time under Section 468, Cr. P. C. and it also did not suffer from territorial jurisdictional error.