RAM NANDAN JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 2.12.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2009 by the Additional Judicial Commissioner. F.T.C.-VI. Ranchi by which the order taking cognizance dated 29.6.2009 passed by Mr. M.K. Tripathy,, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi for the alleged offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case No.2806 of 2008 was set aside and the Criminal Revision was allowed.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the petitioner-complainant Ram Nandan Jha had filed a Complaint Case No.2860 of 2008 before the C.J.M. Ranchi in various sections of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stating therein that his son Sudhanshu Kumar Jha was married with Rimjhim Jha i.e. the daughter of OP No.2 on 11.6.2003 at Bhagalpur. Soon after joining her matrimonial home. Rimjhim Jha started harassing her husband and other in-laws despite all efforts to settle and resolve the matter but no avail and finally she left her matrimonial home with all her belongings and started residing at her parental home. The husband persuaded her and requested to come back and join his society but of no avail and finally he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of District Judge, Gurgaon. Haryana for the restitution of conjugal rights at the place where he was posted in service but after about three months, in retaliation, Rimjhirn Jha ire. the daughter of OP No.2 filed a Complaint Case No. 685 of 2005 on 30.6.2005 in the Court of C.J.M., Ranchi alleging for the offence under Sections 323/420/406/498A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband, father-in-law i.e. the petitioner herein and other in-laws out of vengeance wherein she alleged that after accused Nos.l, 2 and 3 started demanding dowry Rs. 9,00,000 in cash and jewelleries, her father being the Government employee, under the compelling circumstances raised loan from her GPF account and managed to pay Rs.9,00,000 and lOO.grams gold to them during intervening period of her engagement and marriage. The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of, Rimjhirn Jha stated that as per statement of the daughter of the OP No.2, who was his daughter-in-law; a cognizable offence by giving and abetting to accept dowry was made; out against the Opposite Party No. 2 in tems of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and at the same time, they were not entitled to get immunity of the offence under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act because the father of the girl Rimjhirn Jha was not a complainant and such immunity was provided only to the complaint. The petitioner complainant herein filed a petition before the Senior Superintendent of Police-cum-Dowry Prohibition Officer on 12.8.2008 but when no action could be taken, he filed complaint Case No.2806 of 2008 before the C.J.M. Ranchi. The statement of the complainant father-in-law of Rimjhirn Jha was recorded on his solemn affirmation and in course of inquiry under Section 202 his son Sudhanshu Kumar Jha was also produced as inquiry witness, who supported the allegation made by his father and having been satisfied with the prima facie materials. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Ranchi took the cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the OP No.2 Bibhuti Bhushan Jha by the order dated 29.6.2009. Against the said order the OP No.2 Bibhuti Bhushan Jha preferred a Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2009 and the Additional Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case and directed the processes to be issued against the OP No.2 Bibhuti Bhushan Jha for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi without appreciating the materials on the record set aside the order impugned by which the learned Judicial Magistrate having been satisfied with the prima facie case directed for the issuance of notice against the Opposite party Bibhuti Bhushan Jha in the backdrop that his daughter in the complaint filed against her husband and in laws admitted that her father after obtaining GPF loan to the tune of Rs.9,00,000 delivered the amount and 100 grams of gold to the petitioner which prima facie constituted offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.