UTTAM CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed against the order dated 22-5-2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Jaridih P.S. Case No. 34 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 198 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, he dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for discharge.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners that apart from the allegations made in the complaint petition, which become the basis for lodging of present F.I.R., there is absolutely no other materials in the case diary to show that petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 had committed any crime. It is further submitted that independent witnesses as well as brother-in-law and sister of complainant had not stated anything against these petitioners. It is submitted that so far petitioner No. 2 Mithu Gupta is concerned, absolutely there is no allegation against him either in the complaint petition, or in the statement of any witness. Accordingly, Sri Sahani submits that Court below without going into the aforesaid materials available on record, in mechanical manner, passed impugned order, which cannot be sustained in this application.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri M. S. Chabra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 submits that in the complaint petition, as well as in the statement before the police, complainant had specifically stated that she was tortured by petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4, which prima-facie made out a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that statement of other witnesses, who supported the case of defence, cannot be seen at the time of framing of charge. Law requires that, if from the materials available on record, prima-facie offence is made out, then it is the duty of the Court to frame charge and ask the accused persons to face trial. However Sri Chabra fairly stated that in the complaint petition, as well as in the statement before the police, complainant had not alleged anything against petitioner No. 2 namely Mithu Gupta.