GUDDI @ FARHAT PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision for setting aside the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in G.R. Case No. 170 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the accused (petitioner) under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Prosecution case in nutshell is that the informant Rizwana Parvin lodged a written report before the O/C Town P.S. stating therein that she was married to Md. Masrur Alam. On 15.2.1999 at the time of her marriage her father gave 220 gr. gold, 800gr. Silver, Jewellery, apart from 75,000/- cash. The informant went to her matrimonial house where she realized that she was married to a greedy family. Few days after her marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law took away her ornaments and started demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- as they wanted to purchase a flat in the name of her husband. When the informant protested, all her in-laws, her husband started assaulting her. In the meantime, the informant was pregnant, she informed about the torture to her father at which her father came to her in-laws house. The informant was assaulted by the accused persons to such an extent that she had a miscarriage. The second time when she became pregnant, she came to her parents house and on 3.11.2001 she gave birth to a male child at Sahibganj. The in-laws family was informed about the birth of a child but none turned up to see the child. Her husband visited Sahibganj after great efforts made by the informant's father but the behavior did not change and he assaulted her and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/-. The informant's husband used to visit her from time to time. On 26.6.2003 she gave birth to second child. At this time her in laws visited her but they misbehaved with her parents and assaulted her. The accused persons tried to take away her first son with them. The informant again pregnant but due to assault the child in womb had adverse impact, had died within eight hours of his birth.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar the learned Counsel of the petitioners, submits that there is no direct/specific allegation against any of the petitioners rather general and omnibus allegations were made against them. He has further submitted that the petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 are residing at Kolkata and they have been falsely implicated in this case only to harass and humiliate them. His further contention is that the learned trial court has mechanically rejected the discharge application preferred on behalf of the petitioners.