SAROJ TIKADER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Saroj Tikader, one of the accused persons (accused No.1) of C.R. Case No. 208 of 1995 pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Islampore has preferred the present revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has prayed for setting aside of the two orders that were passed by the Magistrate on 4.1.96 and 9.1.97 in the aforesaid case and also for quashing the said proceeding.

(2.) C.R. Case No. 208 of 1995 arose out of a petition of complaint filed before the Magistrate on 6.6.95 by the opposite party No. 2, Puspa Rani Tikadar, under sections 498A, 304B/511 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and his seven relatives such as parents, brothers, sisters and maternal uncle and aunt (accused Nos. 2 to 8) on the allegations which may be stated as follows. The complainant was married to the petitioner about 5/6 years back. Her parents and other near relatives gave sufficient cash and made various other valuable gifts at the time of marriage, but that did not satisfy the desire and aspirations of the accused persons and as a result, since after the marriage, the accused persons started subjecting the complainant to mental and physical torture for extorting motor cycle, T.V. and more money from the parents of the complainant. Sometime in the month of April, 1995, the accused Nos. 1 to 6, aided and abetted by the accused Nos. 7 and 8, poured kerosin oil on the person of the complainant in order to kill her by setting her on fire, but due to timely intervention by the neighbours, the complainant was rescued. Finally, on 29.4.95 the accused Nos. 1 to 6 assaulted the complainant causing injuries on her person and drove her out of her matrimonial home. Since then the complainant has been living in her brother's house. The complainant ledged an information with the Goalpukur P.S. on 6.5.95 for taking action against the accused persons, but uptill now the said P.S. has not registered any case nor made any inquiry. The complainant had also lodged a complaint with the Gramin Mahila Samity which tried in vain to resolve the problem. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 have committed offences under sections 498A, 104B/511 and 307/34 of IPC while the accused Nos. 7 and 8 are liable to be prosecuted for abetment of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took cognizance upon this complaint on 6.6.95, the date on which it was filed, and deferred the examination of the complainant opposite party No. 2 and her three other witnesses present. This examination was completed on 4.1.86 and upon consideration of the statements of the complainant and her three witnesses recorded under section 200 Cr.PC the learned Magistrate found a strong prima facie case under section 498A/307 read with section 34 IPC against the accused Nos. 1 to 6 and under section 498A read with section 34 IPC against the accused Nos. 7 and 8 and accordingly issued summons against all the accused persons by his order dated 4.1.96. On 22.5.96, the learned Magistrate received the return of the summons issued against the accused Nos. 1 to 6. From the process server's report, it appeared to the Magistrate that the accused Nos. 1 to 6 refused to receive the summons and accordingly, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 22.5.95 issued warrant of arrest against the accused Nos. 1 to 6. Thereafter, all the accused persons appeared before the Magistrate either having been brought under arrest on the strength of warrant of arrest or by surrendering before him and were, ultimately, granted bail by the learned Magistrate. On 9.1.97, copies of all the documents within the meaning of section 208 Cr.PC were ready and served upon all the accused persons who were present on that day and the learned Magistrate transferred the case to his own file. On receipt of the record of that case on that very day, the learned Magistrate by his subsequent order dated 9.1.97 fixed a date for appearance of the accused persons and for commitment to sessions.