MANORANJAN DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On completion of the investigation in connection with West Agartala P.S. Case No. 311 of 2011 under Sections 498-A /34 of the I.P.C., the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence has been taken in due course and the charge against the petitioner and other accused persons has been framed by the order dated 17.08.2013 in PRC case No. 965 of 2011, from the West Agartala P.S. case No. 311 of 2011.

(2.) The petitioner raised objection against the charge proposed against him under Section 109 of the I.P.C. read with Section 498-A of the I.P.C. But by the order dated 17.08.2013 such prayer of the petitioner has been rejected. Hence, this petition. It questions the legality of the order dated 17.08.2013 so far it relates to framing of the charge against him.

(3.) Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Judicial Magistrate by the said impugned order has framed the charge merely on surmise. On scrutiny of the final police report, no material would found incriminating the petitioner. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has succinctly submitted that the petitioner used to visit the matrimonial home of his daughter namely, Smt. Mohua Ghosh. The complainant, Smt. Bijaya Debnath has raised allegation of illicit relation between his daughter and her husband. Out of anger, the petitioner has named the petitioner in the F.I.R. and in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Even if those statements are carefully appreciated, no charge can be framed. The purpose is obvious is to harass the petitioner.