RIYAZ AHMAD GANAIE Vs. TABASSUM SAYEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 561 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the criminal complaint titled Tabassum Sayeed v. Riyaz Ahmad Ganaie alleging the commission of offences under Sections 406, 498 -A Ranbir Penal Code (for short 'RPO against the petitioner, and the cognizance order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the learned District Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag, on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized in the year 2011 did not last long due to unwarranted behavior of the respondent and the marriage was dissolved by divorce. The petitioner claims that the respondent had taken all the valuables from her matrimonial home and at the time of divorce remaining articles alongwith dower and maintenance for the period of iddat were given to the respondent. However, the respondent, in order to settle scores with the petitioner, filed a criminal complaint before the learned District Mobile Magistrate, Anantnag, making false allegations of cruelty and criminal breach of trust against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, in order to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations, directed an inquiry in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by incharge Police Station, Anantnag, and, after receipt of the inquiry report, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, by virtue whereof process was issued against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 498 -A RPC.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereof, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the commission of the alleged offences and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in ordering an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is also assailed on the ground that the petitioner was not associated with the inquiry and he was not provided an opportunity of being heard. It is further pointed out that the respondent never made any complaint of alleged cruelty during the subsistence of marriage. It is denied that there was entrustment of any property by the respondent to the petitioner or that the petitioner had committed misappropriation amounting to criminal breach of trust.

(3.) FROM the documents placed on record, it emerges that the parties were married on 15.04.2011 according to Muslim rites. Respondent filed a complaint alleging that the relations between the couple turned sore on account of demand of dowry and acts of cruelty emanating from the petitioner, which finally culminated in pronouncement of triple divorce, resulting in dissolution of marriage inter se the parties. She alleged that she had taken dowry articles at the time of solemnization of marriage to her matrimonial home which had been placed under a lock. However, after dissolution of marriage the petitioner had partially misappropriated the dowry articles of respondent after breaking open the lock. The learned Magistrate, after examining the respondent and the witnesses produced by her, passed an order dated 05.03.2014, by virtue whereof he directed investigation to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations in the complaint. The investigation was directed to be conducted by officer incharge of Police Station, Anantnag. On consideration of the report submitted by the officer incharge of Police Post, Damhal Kushipora, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 15.11.2014, taking cognizance of offence under Sections 406, 498 -A RPC, and issued the process against the petitioner. The impugned order is brief and does not specify the reasons impelling the learned Magistrate to issue the process against the petitioner. It has been assailed on the ground that it does not show application of mind by the learned Magistrate.