PREM DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Karauli whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 319 Cr.RC.

(2.) In a nutshell the facts of the case are that on 10.03.2008, the petitioner submitted a written report at police station Kaurauli. According to the petitioner, her daughter Smt. Mamta was married to one Banty. However, after the marriage, her daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty for dowry. According to her, when her daughter used to come back to the parental home, she would tell them that her in-laws are demanding a motor-cycle and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. Since they could not meet this illegal demand, her daughter was physically abused in her matrimonial home. On 09.03.2008, Mamta called her and told her to bring the money because her mother-in-law Pushpa, her father-in-law Charan, her brother-in-law Laxhmi, her husband Banty, her younger brother-in-laws Prem & Bhupal, her elder sister-in-law Maya and her younger sister-in-law are all physically assaulting her. The petitioner claims that she assured Mamta that she will bring the money within two days. However, in the evening, one Nahar Singh called the petitioner to inform her that Mamta has expired, and has been cremated in the field near Mamta's in-laws' house. On the basis of this report, a FIR was chalked out. However, after a thorough investigation, the police filed a chargesheet only against Banty for offences under Sections 304-B, 201, 176 IPC. During the course of trial, many witnesses had testified about the involvement of Charan, Pushpa, Laxhmi, Prem, Bhupal, Maya, Ram Prasad, Kishori, Sattu, Bhoru. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 04.04.2009, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the stage of 319 Cr.P.C. is akin to taking of cognizance by a Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Therefore, at the initial stage, the learned Magistrate should be concerned only with the existence of 'a prima facie' case. At this preliminary stage, the learned trial court should not critically analyse the evidence. However, in the present case, the learned Judge has critically assessed the testimonies and has dismissed the application. Since the learned Judge has sifted through the evidence, he has over-stepped his jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned Judge has caused a grave injustice to the petitioner.