RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) SINCE the persons arrayed as accused in the case were not summoned by the learned Magistrate as he had dismissed petitioner's complaint U/s. 203 Cr.P.C. it was not considered necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

(3.) MR . K.N. Srimal, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy and Ors. (1) for the proposition that the bar, created U/s. 468 Cr.P.C., does not stand attracted to the offence U/s. 494 and/or 498-A maxim vigilante bus was inapplicable to offences relating to cruelty on women in matrimonial cases. The learned counsel further submitted that since the consequences of the harassment and cruel behaviour, exhibited by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against Smt. Kamlesh, had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Dholpur, he was competent to take cognizance of such offences.