MUKESH RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1 vide which respondents 2 and 3 were discharged by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana vide order dated 24.4.1996 Annexure P-2 vide which the revision petition filed by the State has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that on the complaint of Mukesh Rani a case under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506, 34 IC was registered against Sukhdev, Krishan, Bharto, Kalawanti and Ram Niwas, on the allegations that they have been harassing the complainant for bringing Refrigerator, Scooter and cash amounting to Rs. 50,000 for the purchase of land. After the completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the evidence on record discharged Ram Niwas and Kalawanti whereas other accused were charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 506, 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the State preferred a revision petition which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat who vide order dated 26.3.1998 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the orders of Courts below the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) SHRI Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are palpably erroneous. He submitted that at the time of framing the charge, the Courts are not to see whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted. He submitted that at the time of framing the charge, only a prima facie case is to be seen. If from the evidence on record, a prima facie case is made out, then a charge is to be framed. He submitted that from the evidence on record, it has transpired that there is a prima facie case against respondents 2 and 3. He submitted that the petitioner was harassed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 alongwith their co-accused on account of demand of dowry. They were demanding scooter and refrigerator. He further submitted that the dowry articles have been recovered from the house of respondent No. 2. He submitted that these facts have been overlooked by the learned trial Court.