RUBI KHATOON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Sessions Judge erred in exercising jurisdiction to set aside the order taking cognizance in respect of her in-laws. On her behalf, it is submitted that in course of investigation itself, the petitioner being the informant (wife) had filed a protest petition before the Court alleging that the Investigation Officer had been won over. After investigation and supervision, a chargesheet was filed sending up only the husband for trial of an offence under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, apparently perusing the case diary and in specific referring to four paragraph thereof, disagreed with the chargesheet and took cognizance against the husband of the petitioner and the in-laws who had not been sent up for trial. The learned Magistrate did not reject the chargesheet or the investigation and did not choose to proceed on basis of the pretest petition. The petitioner submits that there was ample material in the protest petition which had been filed and, as such, having taken cognizance against all, the Magistrate committed no illegality and the same ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, set aside the order taking cognizance so far as non-chargesheeted persons were concerned.

(3.) IN view of the facts and the legal position as stated above, I find no merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.