BAHA MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ghatsila in C/1 Case No. 69 of 2005 whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner under section 498A and 323/34 of the IPC.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri Saumitra Baroi learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of complaint petition, no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that in the complaint petition only a vague statement made that all accused persons attributed atrocities on the complainant. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order is an abuse of the process of court, hence cannot be sustained by this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Shekhar Sinha, learned Additional P.P. submits that in the complaint petition, the complainant has categorically stated that accused nos. 1 to 4 had abused the complainant and regularly tortured her both physically and mentally. He further submits that the learned court below took cognizance of the offence not only considering the statements made in the complaint petition rather he also considered the statements of complainant on S.A. as well as the statement of other witnesses examined during the enquiry. The said S.A. and statements of witnesses had not been annexed in this case. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order which require any interference by this Court.