SAGAR CHAND Vs. MST. CHANCHLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 03.09.2015 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur, whereby order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Majalta, has been upheld.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the complainant had made contradicting statements in the complaint, in the sarsari statement and while appearing as witness in the witness box. In the complaint on 25.06.2013 she has stated that marriage took place between the parties in her village Chorh Panjian in Tehsil Ramnagar. After marriage, he asked her to sell her cattle. Within one year cattle were sold and she asked him to take her to Gurha Kalyal, the village of the petitioner which he refused and asked her that both would reside at Chorh Panjian. In the sarsari statement on 25.06.2013 the complainant has not disclosed the place of marriage but stated that the petitioner resided with her for two years at Chorh Panjian and thereafter left back without informing her. In the witness box before the trial Court the complainant stated that marriage took place in Billawar Mandir and afterwards they both stayed in a rented house at Billawar for 6 years. In 2012 he gave her beating and took her to her village Chorh Panjian. Then she sold her cattle and money was taken by the petitioner who after few days left Chorh Panjian. The complainant has made contradicting statements regarding the place and factum of marriage, which confirms the stand of petitioner that marriage never took place. Regarding staying together of parties, further she has made contradicting statements.

(3.) It is further stated that the cattle story is apparently false. In the complaint she said that cattle were sold within one year after marriage and in the witness box she states about selling of cattle in 2012. The contradictions are of very serious nature which indicate that the complainant has not stuck to her statement, she has changed her statement on basic truth at different times and stages of trial.