SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant misc. petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra in Criminal Case No.138/2005 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC as affirmed in revisions being Criminal Revisions Nos.32/2006 and 27/2005 by order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of these misc. petitions are that the petitioner namely Surendra Kumar was married to Manoj two years prior to year 1998. Smt. Manoj consumed some poisonous substance on 18.8.1998. She was taken to the hospital at Bhadra but expired on the way. The petitioner Krishna @ Kishna Ram submitted an information at the Police Station Bhadra on 18.8.1998 alleging inter alia that he along with his son had gone to the agricultural field. He further alleged that his wife followed them with lunch. During the course of the day, his son went to the house and came back and informed him that Smt. Manoj had consumed some poisonous substance and was lying unconscious in the house. She was taken to the hospital at Bhadra, but she was declared dead on the way.

(2.) ON this information, the Police recorded a Marg report (inquest report) under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the S.D.O. concerned, who conducted an enquiry thereupon. In the meantime, the father of the deceased namely Mohan Lal filed a FIR at the Police Station Bhadra on 18.8.1998 with the allegations that his daughter Manoj was married to the petitioner namely Surendra Kumar and within the period of two years of the marriage, she was harassed in relation to demand of dowry and ultimately due to the harassment by the marital relatives, she met with unnatural death in her marital home. The Police, on submission of the complaint registered a FIR for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and commenced investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a FR in the matter disbelieving the case as set up by the complainant. The complainant submitted a protest petition and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra proceeded to accept the protest petition and took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and directed them to be summoned by issuing warrants of arrest.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. He submits that the mechanical fashion, in which, the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is disclosed from the fact that Kamlesh, a nine years' old 'nanad' of the deceased has also been summoned to face trial in this case. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners Rajendra and Krishna Devi along with Poonam and Rajpal were all residing at Shimla for the last three years and were not present in the house on the fateful day. He submits that the order passed by the learned trial court taking cognizance against the petitioners as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court affirming the said order are absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel thus submits that the instant misc. petitions be accepted and the order taking cognizance against the petitioners as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court affirming the order taking cognizance be quashed.