SURENDRA HOTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure , the Petitioners, who are accused persons in G.R. Case No. 644 of 2007 corresponding to Kesinga P.S. Case No. 140 of 2007 pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatana, have called in question the order of taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

(2.) Facts reveal that one Sasmita Hota got married to Sujit Hota, son of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and brother of Petitioner No. 3 on 16.4.2006. The said Sujit Hota expired in a road accident on 17.1.2007. Admittedly thereafter Sasmita Hota was taken back by her father to his village at Utkalapada. On 29.10.2007, the said Sasmita Hota as complainant filed I.C.C. No. 53 of 2007 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, inter alia, making allegation of commission of offence under Sections 406/468/498A/509/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the Petitioners. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna sent the complaint petition to the concerned P.S. for investigation by treating the complaint petition as an F.I.R. The police upon completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet against the Petitioners upon which the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna passed the impugned order on 2.1.2008 on the charge-sheet dated 30.12.2007 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/406/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the Petitioners and directing issuance of process to the Petitioners.

(3.) The main thrust of the allegation made in the complaint petition filed by the complainant is that during the time of marriage as per the demand made by the Petitioner No. 1, 7 tolas of gold ornaments and other household articles along with a Hero Honda Passon Motor Cycle were given as dowry. Subsequently, a further demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made by the Petitioner No. 1, which was also paid by the father of the complainant. After death of the husband of the complainant, she was tortured by the accused persons for which she was brought back by her father to her paternal house. Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1 went to the village Mursing where the complainant was staying with her uncle and asked her uncle to send her back to their house to which her uncle replied that after she gets over the trauma and shock due to the untimely death of the husband, she would go back. It is alleged that one day thereafter the complainant was abused by the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 over telephone. The complainant has further alleged that she received a notice in MAC No. 37 of 2007, which was a case filed for compensation on account of death of the husband of the complainant in a vehicular accident where the complainant was arrayed as an opp. party. Again on telephonic discussion between the Petitioner No. 1 and the father of the complainant, the Petitioner No. 1 abused him and flatly denied to return the articles given during marriage. The further allegation made in the complaint petition is that the ownership of the motor-cycle given to the deceased husband of the complainant at the time of marriage has been changed by the Petitioner No. 1.