KAILASH KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 9.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 103/1999 whereby he has quashed and set-aside the order dated 9.7.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 138/1998 whereby cognizance had been taken against accused-respondent No. 2 for offence under Section 406 I.P.C.

(2.) The relevant facts are that petitioner Kailash Kanwar filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate Sikar for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. on 18.4.1992 against Jagdish Singh, Inder Singh, Barisal Singh, Kesar Kanwar and Smt.Sayar Kanwar with the allegations that she was married with Jagdish Singh according to Hindu religion and rites. Her marriage was performed at Village Kushalpura and sufficient dowry was given including Rs. 72,000/- in cash but the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry given in her marriage and they demanded a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-. On failure to pay the said amount she was turned out of the house. The said complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. After investigation, the police filed Final Report. On Protest Petition filed by the petitioner after enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken on 9.7.1998 against the accused persons for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. The said order was challenged by way of revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sikar who vide his order dated 9.11.2000 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 9.7.1998. Hence, this revision by the petitioner.

(3.) It is contended that the order of the learned Court below is absolutely illegal and contrary to law as also against the materials on record. It is submitted that earlier complaint filed by the father of the petitioner for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was rejected and tried wherein non-petitioner Inder Singh was held guilty and sentenced but in appeal he was acquitted of the said charge. It is also pointed out that no trial was held for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. and the stridhan, details of which are mentioned in the complaint, is still with non-petitioner No. 2. So, cognizance for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. was rightly taken by the learned trial Court but the learned revisional Court without considering the materials on record upset that order.