MADEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is the complainant in the matter. The petitioner filed a First Information Report against the respondents No. 2 to 9 and the police, after investigation, submitted a Final Report in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issue notice to the petitioner -complainant and on her appearing, the petitioner filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate, on which an inquiry was conducted under Sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C. The statement of the petitioner - complainant and her witnesses were recorded and thereafter the learned Magistrate, by the order dated 24.7.2008, proceeded to summon the respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B I.P.C. The respondents No. 2 to 9 herein filed a miscellaneous petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid order, which was registered as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1137/2008. In the miscellaneous petition, a challenge was given to the order issuing process on merit. This Court, whilst considering the miscellaneous petition on 9.9.2008, came to the conclusion that from the material available on record, it cannot be said that on the face value of the case, there existed no material for taking cognizance and accordingly the order of taking cognizance was found to be just and proper, but the direction of the learned Magistrate to issue Warrants of arrest qua respondents Sikander Ali, Firoz Khan, Sultan Khan and Asgar Khan was modified and it was directed that against them bailable warrants shall be issued.

(2.) Surprisingly enough, the respondents herein challenged the very same order of the learned Magistrate dated 24.7.2008 by way of criminal revision petition filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu on 16.4.2009. The factum of respondents having approached to this Court against the order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was deliberately concealed in the revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, whilst considering the revision petition filed by the respondents No. 2 to 9, by the impugned order dated 19.6.2009, accepted the revision petition and set-aside the order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process. It is against the said order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the petitioner complainant has approached this Court by way of revision petition seeking quashing of the order of the Revisional Court whereby the learned Revisional Court has quashed the order issuing process against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 herein.

(3.) Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents herein were guilty of concealing material facts from the revisional Court and that order of the learned Revisional Court deserves to be set aside on this count alone that that factum of challenging the order of the trial Magistrate dated 24.7.2008 issuing process by way of filing miscellaneous petition before this Court was concealed whilst filing the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge. It has further been submitted the impugned order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge is also illegal because the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whilst accepting the revision, has held that (1) none of the allegations made by the complainant constituted an offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ratangarh, and (2) the order taking cognizance was also time-barred. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary submitted that both these findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are per se perverse and contrary to the material available on the record. It has been submitted that in the complainant itself, the complainant-petitioner has specifically averred that her marriage with the respondent No. 2 Sikander Ali took place at Ratangarh and that the "Stridhan" of the complainant was handed over and entrusted to respondent No. 2 Sikander Ali and respondent No. 3 Firoz Khan at Ratangarh. He, thus, submitted that part of the cause of action accrued when the entrustment of dowry articles was made, which is one of the ingredients for the offence of breach of trust which took place at Ratangarh and, thus, by virtue of Sec. 171(d) and Sec. 181(4), Crimial P.C. the Court at Ratangarh very much has the jurisdiction to try the case.