KAILASH BHANSALI Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition u/s. 397 r/w Sec. 401 Crimial P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.2.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the trial Court dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner against final report submitted by police in FIR Case No. 40/201 registered at Mahila Police Station, Udaipur.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the instant revision petition, are that complainant-petitioner (for short 'the complainant' hereinafter) filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur, against the respondents for offences u/ss. 341, 452, 509, 354, 494 and 498-A Penal Code inter alia alleging therein that marriage between complainant and respondent No. 1-Surendra Kumar was solemnised on 6.5.1981, according to Hindu rites. From this wedlock Kumari Monica and Master Vikrant were born. The complainant and respondent No. 2 Surendra Kumar had been residing in the same house from the inception of their marriage. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 filed a petition on 26.6.1998 u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the parties on 6.5.1981. By judgment and decree dated 30.7.2001 in Case No. 183/98, the family Court, Udaipur passed the decree of dissolution of marriage. Before the expiry of statutory period of appeal as envisages u/s. 15 of the Act, respondent No. 1 married to respondent No. 2-Indu Jain @ Indubala Jain on 2.8.2001. Respondents No. 2 to 4 induced respondent No. 1 for the said marriage which ultimately was solemnised on 2.8.2001, thus according to the complainant the respondents have committed offence u/s. -494 IPC. After the marriage with respondent No. 2, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 started living in the same house in which complainant and her two children are residing. It was alleged that respondents No. 1 & 2 made certain gestures intending to insult the modesty of the complainant, thus according to the complainant, they committed an offence u/s. 509 IPC. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 wrongfully restrained the complainant and her two children to enter in the premises occupied by them by putting a channel gate and lock thereon. It was further alleged that on 23.9.2001, at about 9.00 p.m., the respondents entered in premises in which the complainant and her two children are residing and thereafter respondent No. 1 dragged the complainant and respondent No. 2 by tearing her blouse, thus according to the complainant, respondent No. 1 has committed the offence u/s. 498-A IPC.

(3.) By order dated 1.10.2001, the said complaint was sent to SHO, Mahila Police Station, Udaipur for investigation u/s. 156(3) Crimial P.C., on which a crime report was registered as FIR No. 40/2001 on 18.10.2001. After investigation, the police submitted final report on the ground that no such occurrence took place. The complainant on receipt of notice of the final report filed a protest petition on 5.1.2002, before the trial Court and examined herself as AW-1 and produced AW-2 Panna Lal, AW-3 Vikrant and AW-4 Monica in support of the protest petition. On appreciation of the material on record, the trial Court was of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents and, therefore, dismissed the complaint by a reasoned order impugned. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition.