AGASTI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred by the Petitioners against the order impugned dated 6.12.2008 passed by the S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa by which the Discharge Petition filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected in Sonua P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 152 of 2008.

(2.) The informant Opposite Party No. 2 herein presented a written report before Sonua Police Station on 17.5.2008 alleging. inter alia, that she was married to the Petitioner No. 1 Agasti Pradhan in the year 2003 and a considerable amount was spent on the eve of her marriage and thereafter she was taken to her matrimonial home. She further stated that she had instituted a case against her husband for the reason that he had been extending torture for dowry but the High Court intervened by asking her husband to keep her properly and pursuant to such direction of the High Court, she had been living at her matrimonial home with her husband. She further alleged that in the night of 17.5.2008 her husband Petitioner No. 1 pressurized and assaulted her to withdraw her earlier case lest she would be killed but in the meantime she escaped and informed the co-villagers. She further alleged that the Petitioner No. 2 had been abetting her husband.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Sen submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence much less alleged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is attracted against the Petitioner. Similarly, no injury report was presented with the written report before the Police so as to attract the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. She was there in her matrimonial home with her husband on the direction of the High Court so the case of wrongful restraint cannot be made out for the alleged offence and even no overtact has been attributed against the Petitioner No. 2 Sahadev Pradhan against whom there was allegation that he had been abetting her husband but under what manner, the informant was silent.