BAIKUNTHA NATH JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED No.1 in U.I. Case No. 168 of 1985 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurda at Bhubaneswar is the petitioner in this application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code). He challenges to the order of cognizance for the offence under Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act) as per the order passed on 4.5.1999 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that cognizance of the offence cannot be taken on the basis of Police report inasmuch as that is not a 'complaint within the meaning of term 'complaint as provided in Section 7 (i)(b) of the Act before its amendment by The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 63 of 1984 and therefore, the order of cognizance is bad. He also argued that cognizance of the offence after lapse of about two decades by condoning the delay is illegal and unjust.

(3.) PETITIONERS marriage with Sanjukta, the deceased, was solemnised on 1.5.1982. That marriage was subject to stipulation and bargaining of dowry, both in cash and ornaments so also landed property. Parents of the deceased succumbed to the demand and fulfilled it partly and the marriage was performed and completed. According to the allegation from the side of the Opp.Party No.2, who was the informant, that after the marriage of his sister i.e. the deceased her ill fate started because of torture meted to her by the accused persons for the unfulfilled demand of dowry. In the meantime, petitioner being posted as a Judicial Officer at Sambalpur, the deceased went and joined him there and shortly thereafter on 30.9.1982 she was found dead hanging from the ceiling of room of the house. In the previous application of the petitioner under Section 482, Cr.P.C. registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.686 of 1989 and disposed of on 23.11.1989 (being reported in Volume 69 (1990) C.L.T. 440) Honble K. P. Mohapatra, J. (as His Lordship then was) pleased to note that :