NAMITA DEVI @ BABY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision for setting aside the order dated 17.2.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R.Case No. 1706 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the petition under section 227 Cr.P.C for discharge the petitioners. The prosecution case in brief is that Suman Devi wife of the petitioner no.5 Birender Narayan Rowani, lodged a written information to the officer -incharge, Katras Police Station stating therein that her marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu Rites and custom on 26..4.2002 with Birender Narayan Rawani . At the time of marriage her father had given a number of gifts and a sum of rupees fifty thousands for purchase of Hero Honda as demanded by her in -laws. But they did not purchase the Motor Cycle. After some time, her husband, mother in -law and brother -in -law again asked her to bring Hero Honda Motor bike. She informed her parents about the same. Her father came to her matrimonial home and tried to pacify. They remain peaceful for some times but again they started torturing physically and mentally for their demand. Ultimately on 23.4.2005 her mother -in -law and brother -in -law came to her and asked for bringing money for Hero Honda Motor bike and threatened her to kill her and the said three persons assaulted her physically. Hearing all this things her mother and brother came to her quarter on 25.4.2005 and asked them as to why they behave with her daughter in this way. The accused persons assaulted her mother and brother also and then they left the quarter. The informant further alleged when the accused persons did not return to her quarter, she also locked the quarter and went to her parents house. It is further stated that her sister in -law and her husband had also their hands in this matter. On the basis of the aforesaid written information, a case has been registered under section 498A I.P.C and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

(2.) MR .Baban Lall, Sr.Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the informant has lodged this case against the petitioners only to harass them and the entire prosecution case as alleged is false and baseless and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners.

(3.) IT has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though alleged occurrence has been taken place on 25.4.2005 but information given to the Police Station after a month i.e. on 28.5.2005 and no cogent reason has been assigned for the said delay.