SUNEETA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.4,2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Patna in Cr. Rev. No. 650 of 2005 thereby he has set aside the order dated 7.7.2005 passed by S.D.J.M., patna in Danapur P.S. Case No. 273 of 2000 rejecting the petition filed by the opposite parties under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The fact of the case is that the petitioner-informant lodged fardbeyan against the opposite parties before Danapur P.S. upon which the police registered Danapur P.S. Case No. 273 of 2000 under Sections 498A, 323, 353/34 of the I.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the opposite parties. Accordingly, cognizance under the above sections including under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken. In course of the trial, the accused-opposite parties filed a petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge which was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. and directed the opposite parties to remain physically present for framing of the charge under Sections 406 and 323 of the I.P.C. The accused-opposite parties preferred revision against that order, which has ultimately been allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) In course of the submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision has been allowed without hearing the petitioner-complainant only on defence material. It is further submitted that on law also the impugned order is not maintainable, He has wrongly held that cognizance under Section 323 Cr.P.C. is barred by limitation.