ARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant3 misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as the Revisional Court ) in Criminal Revision No. 305/2010, whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.07.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Complaint No. 312/2010(Arun Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. Pooja Sharma & Others), whereby the learned Trial Court took cognizance only against the accused Pooja Sharma and Dilip Sharma for the offences under Section 494 IPC and refused to take cognizance against remaining accused persons.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner submitted a complaint against Smt. Pooja, Dilip Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Smt. Saroj Sharma, Ashish Sharma, Jyoti Sharma, Subhash Sharma and Smt. Raj Sharma before the learned Trial Court for the offences under Sections 494 and 114 IPC mentioning therein that the marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Pooja was solemnized according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals in the presence of Sacred-fire(Pavitra Agni) performing Saptpadi as well as other essential ceremonies according to the Hindu Law. The above marriage was solemnized on dated 09.05.2004 at Shivaji Colony, Town Niwai, District Tonk in the presence of parents and relatives of both the parties. After the marriage, the petitioner and Pooja lived together till 14.06.2008 and thereafter Smt. Pooja, due to her own wrongs and wishes started living with her parents without any reasons. Smt. Pooja filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging false and frivolous allegations against him and his all family members before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk. The learned ACJM sent the above complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Niwai whereupon FIR No. 43/2009 was registered under Section 498A, 323, 406 IPC. Thereafter, the police started investigation. During the course of investigation, on apprehension of arrest of petitioner and his whole family members, they moved an anticipatory bail application which was allowed and anticipatory bail granted to all of them. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner and his elder brother Raj Narayan vide charge sheet No. 174/09 for offence under Section 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After lodging the FIR, Smt. Pooja filed another complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner and his whole family members before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk and same was numbered as 100/09. Learned ACJM Court after hearing both the sides, awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to Smt. Pooja. In compliance of the above order, the petitioner deposited the amount in the Court till September, 2009. Thereafter, he sent the above maintenance by way of money order to Smt. Pooja Sharma, but she refused to receive the money-order of above maintenance amount from the month of October, 2009. The petitioner enquired into the matter and on enquiry, it came to the knowledge of petitioner that Smt. Pooja contracted second marriage with Dilip Sharma without getting the decree of divorce from competent Court. Thereafter, the petitioner presented a complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur for the offences under Section 494 and 114 IPC. The above complaint was registered and the petitioner and his witnesses were examined under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as other photographs and video C.D. were also produced. Thereafter, the learned Trial took cognizance against Pooja Sharma and Dilip @ Sonu and did not take cognizance against Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Saroj Sharma, Ashish Sharma, Jyoti Sharma, Subhash Sharma and Raj Sharma vide order dated 07.07.22010. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Revisional Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved with the orders passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner-complainant has preferred this misc. petition before this Court.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State and perused the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below.