BHARAT BHUSHAN JOLLY Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inherent power of this Court enshrined in Sec. 561-A Cr. P.C. (now Sec. 528 BNSS) has been invoked by the petitioners for quashing order dtd. 18/12/2015 (For short 'impugned order') passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Electricity), Jammu (For short 'The Magistrate') in case titled as 'State vs. Vipul Kohli and Ors'.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition as stated therein are that respondent 6 herein got married to respondent 3 herein on 19/6/2010 and that the petitioners herein are the relatives of respondent 3 herein being his maternal uncle, maternal aunt and their son in law and daughter respectively and that respondent 6 herein lodged a complaint against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 herein on 11/12/2014 before the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) Cr. P.C. alleging therein commission of offences under Sec. 498-A and 109 RPC which complaint upon being forwarded by the Magistrate to respondent 1 resulted into registration of FIR No. 114/2014 for offences under Sec. 498-A and 109 RPC against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 herein, whereupon after concluding the investigation therein in the said FIR, charge sheet came to be laid against the petitioners herein as also respondents 2 to 5 herein before the Magistrate and whereafter, the petitioners herein being accused persons therein in the said charge sheet sought their discharge on the ground that the allegations leveled against them in the charge sheet are false and frivolous without there being any specific allegation leveled by the complainant-respondent 6 against them, whereupon the Magistrate after hearing the appearing counsel for the accused petitioners as also the PP, in terms of order dtd. 18/12/2015 rejected the plea of accused petitioners herein for their discharge and held there to be sufficient material against the accused persons for framing of charge.

(3.) The accused petitioners herein have challenged the order dtd. 18/12/2015 supra in the instant petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the Magistrate failed to take notice of the facts and circumstances of the case in particular that the complainant-respondent 6 herein had neither attributed any incident of violence committed upon her by the petitioners herein nor commission of any physical or mental torture including a demand of dowry and that since there was no act attributed to the petitioners constituting the alleged offences committed by the petitioners herein, the Magistrate while declining to discharge the petitioners in terms of the impugned order caused miscarriage of justice.