SUBHAG RANI Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this revision petition are that the present petitioner Subhag Rani had filed a criminal complaint under sections 420, 406, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (briefly the Code) against her husband Sant Ram alias Ram alias Mam Chand alias Mamu, his brother and parents. According to the allegations in the complaint, Subhag Rani was married to Sant Ram on 16.4.1979 at village Sundran, district Patiala according to Hindu rites. After marriage, she was brought to village Shahpur, along with dowry articles mentioned in Annexure A and B attached to complaint. Sant Ram his parents and brothers were not satisfied with the dowry given by the parents complainant and so, they started maltreating her and ultimately, on 4.6.1979, she was given beating by the accuser about which she made a complaint with the police. However, the matter was compromised. In March 1981, the husband, his brother and parents again maltreating her in order to force her to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. On 4.4.1981, the said accused wanted to kill her by burning and also threatened her in that respect, but she saved her life by running away from the house and took shelter with one of her relatives. The accused came to the house of the said relative, with Dandas and threatened that relative to send her otherwise, they would kill him. Some other persons intervened and saved the complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused had misappropriated the articles of the complainant given in Annexures A and B and had refused to return the same to her.

(2.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City, summoned all the accused to stand their trial under sections 406 and 506 of the Code.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no revision petition lay against the order passed by the learned trial Court under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ordering issuance of process against the accused, as it will be deemed to be an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is barred by section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Khacheru Singh v. State of U.P. and another, AIR. 1982 SC 784(2) wherein it was remarked:-