PUTUL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.3.2007, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 498 of 2004. whereby the petitioner's prayer under Section 319 of the Cr PC for summoning the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and directing them to face trial in the case was rejected.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against her husband. Sanjay Gupta and also against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. The complaint was forwarded to the police for registering a case and investigation. The case at the Sadar Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 398 -A and 307 of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After concluding the investigation, the police submitted charge -sheet recommending trial of the husband. Sanjay Gupta only while the remaining accused persons, namely, the present opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 were not sent up for trial. After accepting the recommendations in the charge -sheet, the learned Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the husband. Being aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner/complainant filed a Revision application before the High Court, agitating therein, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in failing to take cognizance of the offences against the other accused persons, namely, the present opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. The Revision application was, however, dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 8.12.2005, passed in Cr. Revision No. 1103 of 2004. The trial against the sole accused husband of the petitioner commenced. At the trial, four witnesses including the complainant herself were examined. On the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial through the witnesses, the petitioner field her application before the Court below under Section 319 of the Cr PC, praying that the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 should be summoned to face trial. The learned trial Court, however, rejected the prayer vide its impugned order. It is against this order that the present Revision application has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6, wherein, they have denied and disputed the entire claim of the petitioner. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 submits that the instant Revision application is totally misconceived and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned trial Court. Learned Counsel would explain that the opposite party No. 2 is the father -in -law of the petitioner who had retired from service 16 years ago in the year 1992 and he is presently aged about 74 years while the opposite party No. 3, Nirmala Rani Gupta is the mother -in -law, aged 65 years. Out of the three remaining opposite parties, the opposite party No. 4 Rakesh Kumar Gupta is employed and presently living at Jamshedpur, the opposite party No. 5. Ravi Kant Gupta is also employed and living at Jamshedpur and the opposite party No. 6, Shashi Kant Gupta, is also employed and living at Budwil, Chhatisgarh, working as a Mining Engineer. While the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are living separately at their native village, the remaining opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 also live separately in their respective quarters, allotted to them by their employers and even at the time of marriage of the petitioner with her husband, they used to live separately. Learned Counsel explains further that even as admitted in the complaint petition, soon after her marriage solemnized on 20.5.2001, the petitioner along with her husband went to Kolkata where the husband was employed and later, on his transfer to Pune, they shifted to Pune and liyed there far away and separate from the present opposite parties. The allegations in the complaint petition relate to certain incidents which had occurred between the husband and wife while they were living together either at Kolkata or at Pune and the last date of the alleged occurrence as stated in the complaint petition is 30th June. 2003 on which date, the complainant was living at Pune in the exclusive company of her husband. Learned Counsel explains that the allegations against the present respondents are totally omnibus and general in nature. It was under these circumstances that the police on investigation did not find any material against the present respondents for recommending therein trial and, therefore, submitted the charge -sheet only against the husband. Learned Counsel argues further that from the facts stated it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the police reports and issued summons after taking cognizance of the offence only against the husband. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed a Revision application before the High Court, which was dismissed. From the evidences also, it appears that though the petitioner and her witnesses have named the present respondents but no specific evidence has been adduced against them nor has any specific conduct been alleged against them. The facts and circumstances amply demonstrate, therefore, that the petitioner is bent upon harassing the entire members of her matrimonial family including the aged parents -in -law and brothers of her husband only in order to compel them to accept her in their family although the husband is totally unwilling to reconcile and restore conjugal relations with her. From the perusal of the impugned order of the learned Court below, it appears that on considering the evidence adduced at the trial, the trial Court had recorded its observation that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not sufficient to summon the other five co -accused persons against whom cognizance has not been taken and that there is no prima facie case made out against the other five persons. It is on these grounds that the learned Court below has rejected the petitioner's prayer.