RANVIJAY PRASAD DEO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications arise out of the same impugned order i.e. order dated 27-7-2006 passed by the Trial Court whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 245/227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge was rejected and, therefore, both the revision petitions heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 749 of 2006 is the husband of the complainant- opposite party whereas, the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 754 of 2006 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant.

(2.) The facts in short giving rise to this application are that the complainant-opposite party No. 2 Punam Singh (hereinafter called as Complainant) filed a Complaint Case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad being the Complaint Case No. 781 of 2004 against the petitioners i.e. her husband, father-in-law namely Kuseshwar Prasad Deo and mother-in-law namely Kusum Devi and one Ekta Roy, said to be the second wife of her husband for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 498A/494 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging therein that the complainant was married to the petitioner Ranvijay Prasad Deo on 24-6-1988 and at the time of her marriage, Rs.1,50,000/-, one Hero Honda Motorcycle and Gold weighing 30 Bhar were given to the petitioner and his parents but, after few days of the marriage, the accused- petitioners started torturing her for more money. Due to the pressing demand of the accused persons, the father of the complainant was compelled to pay Rs. 25.000/- and Rs. 10.000/- to her husband-accused/petitioner. The accused-husband subsequently sold the Hero Honda Motorcycle and then for purchasing a Maruti Car, again started demanding Rs. 50.000/- from the in-laws. The complainant explained the financial constraints of her father but her husband, father-in- law and the mother-in-law mercilessly beaten her and started regularly giving her physical and mental torture. Subsequently, the complainant and her husband went to her parent's place. It is alleged that because of the act of torture committed by the accused persons, the complainant was compelled to stay back at her parent's place. Thereafter, in order to extract more money, her husband/petitioner remarried with accused No. 4 Ekta Roy on 1-11-1996 by swearing an affidavit that this complainant was died and since thereafter, he (husband- petitioner) is living with the accused No. 4 as husband and wife. The further allegations in the complaint petition was that after some time, in the year 2000, her husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law called the complainant at their Ranchi residence on the pretext that she would not be tortured in the future and when the complainant went there, she again felt that the accused persons were conspiring to do her away and in that course, the complainant was taken inside a room and thereafter, her mother-in-law poured Kerosene Oil on her and her husband set fire due to which, the bed and saree of the complainant got burnt and she started raising Hulla due to which, the neighbouring people came there and then, she was saved . Thereafter, the complainant went back to her parent's place. ' The further allegation is that the complainant on being called by her father-in- law and mother-in-law, went to their Deoghar residence and on their repeated assurance that her husband would sever his connection with the accused No. 4 Ekta Roy. But there in the night, her husband pointed revolver on the temple and got her signed on some papers. When she objected, her husband and her in-laws threatened to kill her. The complainant anyhow, after saving her life, .again came back to her parent's place. On i 1-4-2004, at about 10:00 in the morning her husband (petitioner) and her mother-in-law came to Dhanbad and threatened her that if she would take any action, she and her family members would be killed. Ultimately, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1-6-2004.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C., took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons. After the complainant led evidence before Charge, a petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr. P. C. for their discharge on the ground that the case was absolutely false and fabricated and there was no material to frame charge against them and that the Court at Dhanbad has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The said petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court after hearing the parties by the impugned order and hence this application.