PRASANNA KUMAR MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Sambalpur in G. R. Case No. 1401 of 1999 framing charge for commission of offences under Sections 498(A), 506 and 34 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act. It appears from the record that initially the G.R. Case was registered in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur and subsequently the same has been transferred to the Court of the learned J.M.F.C.

(2.) THE petitioners are accused persons in the aforesaid G.R. Case. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of opposite party No. 2 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1. The allegation of opposite party No. 2 is that she had married the petitioner No. 1 as per Hindu customs and rites and after living together for sometime there were differences and opposite party No. 1 lodged an FIR on 19.4.1998 alleging (herein that prior to marriage the petitioner No. 2 had demanded furniture, dress for the bridegroom and expenses of the Barat. Thereafter, Rs. 27,000/ -had been given towards furniture, cooking gas and freeze. At the time of marriage, a colour T.V., washing machine and several other articles were also given along with further cash of Rs. 45,00,000/ -. It is further alleged in the FIR that from the beginning of the marriage, the in -laws of the opposite party No. 2 including her husband meted out mental and physical torture to opposite party No. 2 and demanded further dowry. It is also alleged that she was illfed and was occasionally assaulted by the petitioner No. 1. The specific allegation against the petitioner No. 1 is that he was coming to the house in a drunken condition and threatened to kill the opposite party No. 2. On such allegation investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 498(A), 506 and 34 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) AT the time of taking cognizance or framing of charge the Court is only required to see whether prima facie materials are available on record to support the order taking cognizance or framing charge. The defence of the accused is not required to be considered at this stage. Specifically at the time of framing of charge on the existing material available on record, if the Court presume that the offences alleged are committed, charge for those offences can be framed. There are specific allegations of demand of dowry and torture in the FIR Whether such FIR was an after thought or not can be decided during trial. The defence allegations as mentioned in the petition and submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot also be considered at this stage since prima facie materials are available on record to support the charges in respect of which charge has been framed. In view of the above, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed.