RAM CHANDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2010 whereby the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. The short facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a report at P.S. Malpura. District Tonk on 11.03.2009 alleging therein that his daughter has been married to Ramphool and she was physically and mentally tortured by her husband and in-laws Ram Chandar, Sajna, Asha and Ramlal. They were demanding Rs. 50,000/- in cash and motor-cycle as dowry. On 10.03.2009, the complainant went to her in-laws house to bring his daughter home on the festival of Holi but her in-laws misbehaved with him and abused him and further refused to send his daughter until the demand of dowry is fulfilled. On 11.03.2009, at about 12.30 p.m. he came to know that his daughter has died. On this report, an FIR No. 34/2009 was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 304B and 34 IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the husband of the deceased only and no case was found to be made against the present petitioners. The learned trial court framed charges and after recording the prosecution evidence, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. praying to take cognizance against the present petitioners, which was allowed. Hence this petition.

(2.) The contention of the present petitioners is that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are the extraordinary powers and should be exercised in exceptional cases and the present case does not fall in the category of exceptional case. To invoke the powers conferred by Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is necessary that sufficient material be there, which may ultimately prove the guilt of the accused and in the present case, there is no evidence against the present petitioners to prove their guilt and hence the impugned order should be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and looking to the statements referred in the impugned order, cognizance has rightly been taken against the present petitioners.