LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-136

RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On September 19, 2014
RAVINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT is that learned JMIC, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una vide order passed on 31.01.2012 (Annexure P -K) in case No. 132 -I/10 has erroneously issued process against the petitioner, one of the accused, as he being the uncle of the principal accused Vikas Sharma residing separately from the said accused and other members of his family, hence never treated deceased Preeti Sharma wife of the principal accused with cruelty nor cheated her in any manner whatsoever. The conclusion drawn by learned Magistrate that a case for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 417 of the Indian Penal Code is prima -facie made out from the complaint and the evidence produced in preliminary is stated to be wrong and without any basis.

(2.) WHAT could I gather from the record is that deceased Preeti Sharma solemnized marriage with accused Vikas Sharma on 28.04.2007. They lived together as husband and wife up to 29.06.2007 and thereafter lived separately. Subsequently, a divorce petition came to be filed by accused Vikas Bhardwaj in the District Courts Rohini, Delhi under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent. The marriage was dissolved by learned Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts at Delhi vide judgment and decree dated 20.05.2008 (Annexure P -A).

(3.) ON the complaint made, FIR No. 118/09, Annexure P -H was registered against the accused -petitioner and his co -accused in Police Station, Amb, District Una. The police on investigation of the case seems to have filed cancellation report, however, not accepted by learned trial Magistrate and to the contrary, while taking cognizance of the offence, passed the order Annexure P -K, issuing process against the accused -petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 4 -X -2012, preferred by the accused -petitioner has upheld the order Annexure P -K passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 03.04.2013, Annexure P -L, hence this petition with the following prayers: