TARUN MAHANT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 11.1.2005, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, whereby charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been ordered to be framed against the petitioners/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons').

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that according to the prosecution, complainant Surbhi Mahant was married to accused Tarun Mahant on 19.1.2001. Her parents had given dowry at the time of her marriage as per their capacity. However, after some days of the marriage at the instance of accused Ram Krishan Mahant and Bimla Mahant, accused Tarun Mahant started beating and torturing the complainant who tolerated the torture and bearings believing that with the passage of time the situation would improve. However, the excesses of the accused persons went on increasing. On 21.2.2002 the complainant gave birth to a daughter. Even thereafter the torturing of the complainant continued on the ground of bringing less dowry and the accused persons insisted that she should ask her parent to purchase a Car for them. On 8.8.2002 getting fed up with the tortuose and cruel behaviour of the accused persons, the complainant attempted to commit suicide. On 2nd and 9th of March, 2003 she was again beaten up by accused Tarun Mahant, therefore, she left for her parents' house. The matter was thereafter reported to the police and investigation followed. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 498-A o the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was presented against the accused persons. On 11.1.2005 the impugned order directing framing of the charge against the accused persons came into being. Aggrieved by the order, this petition has been preferred by them.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent - State and have also gone through the records.