ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by this miscellaneous petition, have challenged the order dated 14-9-92, passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against petitioners Ashok Kumar and Smt. Sushma for the offences under Ss. 498-A and 406, I.P.C. and issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 to secure the presence of the petitioners.

(2.) Complainant Uma Devi W/o. Jagdish Rai, on 7-1-92, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, against Jagdish Rai, Prakash Chandra, Gyan Devi, Purshottam Lal, Pradeep Kumar, Sulochna, Sushma and Ashok Kumar for the offences under Ss. 406 and 498-A, I.P.C. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married to the accused No. I Jagdish Rai as per the Hindu customs and rites and at the time of marriage, her parents gave various items mentioned in para No. 1 as dowry. Sometime after the marriage, the respondents started cruelly treating her and accused Nos. 2 to 9 instigated the accused No. 1 (the husband of the complainant) to force her to bring some more money from her parents and at this instigation the accused No. 1 asked the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000.00- and a Hero Honda Motor-cycle from her parents, upon which she told him that her parents had already given sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage and, now, her father is not in a position to give more money; whereupon the accused No. I started giving beatings to her and asked that if she would not bring the money and the Motor-cycle then she will not be kept in the house. The other accused, also, started giving beatings to her. The parents of the complainant called the accused No. 1 and tried to pacify him but all those attempts went in vain. Thereafter a Panchayat was called but the accused party continued to give beatings to the complainant and sometime she was not even supplied the food and accused Nos. 8 and 9 (the present petitioners) whenever they used to come to Hanumangarh, accused No. 8 used to give beatings to her and stated that they would turn her out from the house. The complainant started resisting the respondents and thereafter, five months before the date of presentation of the complaint, the accused turned her out from the house. The complaint, filed by the complainant, was referred by the learned Magistrate for further investigation under S. 156(3), Cr. P. C. to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against Jagdish Rai - the husband of the complainant, - Prakash Chandra (father-in-law of the complainant), Smt. Gyan Devi (mother-in-law of the complainant), Pushottam Lal and Pradeep Kumar (brothers-in-law of the complainant), Sulochana and Sushma (sisters-in-law of accused No. I Jagdish Rai). The police, however, submitted the Final Report with respect to Smt. Sushma (sister-in-law of the complainant) and Ashok Kumar (husband of Smt. Sushma). On the submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance against these accused, against whom the charge-sheet was presented, was taken and the copies of the Challan-papers were given to their counsel. On 3-8-90, an application under S. 319, Cr. P. C. was moved by the learned Counsel for the complainant for taking cognizance against Smt. Sushma W/o Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar, who are sister and brother-in-law of Jagdish Rai. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 14-9-92, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Ss. 406 and 498-A, I.P.C. and issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 for securing their presence. It is against this order that the petitioners have presented this miscellaneous petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Sushma is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who was married to Ashok Kumar ten years before the date of filing the complaint and they are residing at Bhatinda (Punjab) and not at Hanumangarh, which has been admitted by the wit witnesses in their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C, and the allegations made against the petitioners are vague and general in nature. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have been implicated in this case in order to wreck the personal vengeance and the learned Magistrate, while taking the cognizance against the petitioners, has not taken into consideration the fact that the allegations, made in the complaint, aye patently absurd and inherently improbable and on the basis of it, no person of reasonable prudence can reach to a conclusion that there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners and, therefore, the complaint, filed by the complainant, deserves to be dismissed and the order taking cognizance against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In support of its contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over : Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar, (1993 AIR SCW 771). It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the power to summon additional accused, against whom no challan has been filed by the police under S.319, Cr.P.C. can be exercised only after some evidence is led by the prosecution and not before that as S. 319, Cr.P.C. is attracted for summoning the additional accused only after production of the evidence by the prosecution. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over : Krishna Lal v. State of Haryana, 1991 (l) Crimes 43, Darshan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) Crimes 77 and Dr. Vinod Kumar Goyal v. Union Territory, 1991 (3) Crimes 2333: (1991-Cri LJ 2333). Learned counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 2), on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate and submitted that the scope of enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. is extremely limited only to ascertain the truth or false-hood of the allegations made in the complaint and in the evidence produced by the complainant and when once the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, exercising its discretion judiciously then it is not open for the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merit with a view to find-out whether or not the allegations made in the complaint are proved or will ultimately end in the conviction of the accused and the order of taking the cognizance cannot be interfered with. In support of its contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance over : Smt. Nagawa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947.