RAM KAILASH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No. C 106 of 1997, has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Motihari in Cr. Revision No. 47 of 1998. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 4.12.1997 whereby S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

(2.) Shri Raj Dular Sah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, had acted as if he was an appellate court and that too contrary to the facts and evidence, which were brought on record during the enquiry by the learned S.D.J.M. in Complaint Case No. C 106 of 1997.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner after break of marriage of his daughter with Anirudh Prasad (opposite party No. 3), son of Amresh Prasad(opposite party No. 2) due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry after completion of the Tilak ceremony, filed the present complaint case. In the complaint case, it was alleged that marriage was settled and thereafter, a date of Tilak ceremony was also fixed. In the Tilak ceremony, several gifts were presented to the accused persons which according to the complainant was for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. After the ceremony of Tilak was complete, the accused persons reached the house of the complainant with further demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and Television. It was alleged in the complaint petition that since the complainant refused to fulfil the demand of dowry, the accused persons refused to solemnize marriage and as such the accused persons had cheated the complainant and also they had committed offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was alleged that after the marriage was fixed, the complainant had also got printed the invitation card and due to act of the accused persons, the reputation of complainant was denigrated in society and on these grounds, complaint petition was filed. After filing complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of complaint case, the complainant examined three witnesses, who according to the complainant, fully supported the case of complainant.