GULAM KUTBUDDIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7-9-2004 passed in Cr. Revision No. 94 of 2004 by the Addition Sessions Judge, FTC 1, jamshedpur, whereby while setting side the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the learned Magistrate in Cl-1269 of 2003, the Revisional Court had directed the Magistrate to issue summons against the petitioners calling upon them to face trial for the offences under sections 498a/323/147/148/149, IPC.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, is that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 6-12-2003 which was registered as Cl-1269 of 2003 against the present petitioners alleging, inter alia, that her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 27-5-2002 whereafter she came to live with her husband at her matrimonial house in the company of her parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. She learnt within two months of her marriage that her husband, in fact, was an unemployed and he had sold away two of her gold finger rings and when the complainant asked her husband, he abused and assaulted her threatening not to interfere with his life style. Later, the husband as well as her in-laws began making demand for a sum of rupees two lakhs by way of dowry on the plea that the money would help the husband in establishing business of his own and they began to pressurize the complainant to fetch money from her father. The demand having not been fulfilled, the husband and other members of the family began subjecting her to neglect, ill- treatment and cruelty, both mentally and physically. The complainant has given incidents of the acts of cruelty to which she was subjected by her husband and other members of her matrimonial family accusing each of the accused persons for inflicting torture upon her in various manners. She has also alleged that the husband had declared that he would contract a second marriage with the daughter of one Pir Saheb Rashid Raja with whom he had developed illicit relation and the husband, his sister and parents used to assault her demanding her consent for the second marriage of her husband. The complainant alleges that ultimately after having been assaulted mercilessly, she was made to flee away from her matrimonial house and to return to her parents.

(3.) ON receipt of the complaint petition filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offences transferred the case to the court of the learned Magistrate for inquiry and disposal under section 192 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The transferee court proceeded to conduct inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. and in course of inquiry, had recorded statements of the complainant and her witnesses on solemn affirmation. After perusing the allegation in the complaint petition along with the statement of the complainant and her witnesses recorded in the inquiry, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by order dated 27-5-2004 on the ground that there is delay of more than nine months in filing of the case and that the allegations are vague and unspecific and the case has been filed only with intent to harass the accused persons and to prevent the husband from his intended second marriage. Against the aforesaid order, the complainant preferred a Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2004 which was finally disposed of by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 1 by the impugned order dated 7-9-2004 after hearing the opposite party No. 2/complainant only, since the present petitioners were not made parties to the said revision application. The learned Additional Sessions judge after going through the materials on record, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate by recording observation that the allegations in the complaint read with the statement of the complainant and her witnesses do make out a prima facie case for the offences against the present petitioners and on such finding, directed the learned magistrate to issue processes against the accused persons directing them to face trial in the case.