V.P. GUREJA Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER RAHEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises two questions : One whether it is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, two, whether inherent powers of this Court can be invoked to grant relief to the petitioner. The revision petitioner filed a complaint under sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against his son-in-law, respondent herein, as far back as 11th November, 1983. His case was that he advertised for a suitable match for his daughter in the Tribune dated 6-3-1983. Amongst others, the respondent sent his particulars. Marriage took place in which the petitioner allegedly spent Rs. 80,000/-. The marriage has not so far been a success. Later on it was discovered that the respondent bad made a false representation to the petitioner in respect of his age, his previous marital status viz. that he was a divorcee and his salary.

(2.) THE trial concluded on 2.9.1987 after recording defence evidence. At the request of counsel for the complainant two days' time was granted for making an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the application filed on 8 9.1987, the petitioner wanted to produce additional evidence to prove that he had in fact, advertised in the Tribune dated 6.3 1983 for a match for his daughter. The application was opposed. By a detailed order dated 12.9 1987, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application. The present revision is directed against that order.

(3.) IN coming to the above conclusion. reliance was placed on Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2185, in which the Supreme Court observed :