LAWS(ORI)-2002-6-35

SRI DEBENDRANATH MAHAKUD Vs. SMT. MANJULATA MAHAKUD

Decided On June 19, 2002
Sri Debendranath Mahakud Appellant
V/S
Smt. Manjulata Mahakud Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who is an accused in a case registered under Sections 494, 498 -A and 120(B), IPC has challenged the impugned order on the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur in I.C.C. No. 73 of 1997, taking cognizance of the offences against the Petitioner.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on a reading of the complaint petition alongwith the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure no case under the aforesaid section is made out and therefore the order of cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

(3.) A perusal of the complaint petition clearly makes out a case of demand of a motor -cycle as dowry and the parents of the girl having not been able to fulfil the said demand, she was tortured both physically and mentally. The Petitioner -husband had filed a divorce petition bearing Matrimonial Title Suit No. 72 of 1992 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sonepur, which was decreed ex parte, as against which an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the opposite party -wife. During the pendency of the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree, the Petitioner again has married. The allegation of the complainant is corroborated by the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure Thus, this is not a case where it can be said that the perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of witnesses so recorded during enquiry does not constitute an offence or that there is no legal evidence at all in support of the prosecution. The complainant is still to lead her evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that the continuance of the proceeding would result either in waste of public time or money or will cause great prejudice to the accused concerned. Rather, the inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure can appropriately be exercised to prevent abuse of any process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and should not be exercised to throttle a legitimate prosecution. A reference may be made to the decisions of the apex Court in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shlvalingappa Konjalgi and Ors. : AIR 1976 SC 1947; The Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. : AIR 1993 SC 892 and State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Romesh Chander and Ors. : (1997) 1 SCC 90.