TRILOK DASHOTTAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the husband against an order dated 27.3.2003 delivered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur.

(2.) The wife instituted a case before the said court for the offence under Sec. 498-A of the Penal Code with the allegation that she was thrown out of her in-laws house by her husband on 10.7.96 and since then, she has been living at her maternal house. It is alleged that she was tortured by the husband when she was living with him. The F.I.R. was lodged on 3.8.2000 and after appearance of the accused, he moved an application under Sec. 468 of the Crimial P.C. wherein it was contended that since the wife was not living with the husband and was living at her maternal house w.e.f. 10.7.96, no cognizance after, a period of 3 years i.e., 10.7.1999 could be taken against the husband. The learned trial court made an observation to the effect that an offence under Sec. 498-A of the Penal Code was a continuous offence and hence, Sec. 468 of the Cr.RC. was as good as irrelevant when the allegations are made for an offence under Sec. 498-A of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) I find that it is difficult to agree with the observations made by the learned trial court. As pointed out earlier, it is not in dispute that the wife is not living with the accused after 10.6.96. The learned trial court has made an observation that in Jan., 1998 and Jan., 2000, the wife approached her in-laws but their behaviour was rude and she had to return. Needless to say that simply on the basis of the allegation of rude behaviour, it cannot be said that an offence under Sec. 498-A of the Penal Code stood disclosed in Jan. 1998 and Jan. 2000.