GAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order impugned passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 98 of 1998 on 12.8.2008 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the petition that was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner Dr. Gajendra Kumar Singh requesting for examination of the expert witnesses to prove certain documents.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in short was that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 Dr. Saroj Kumari presented a complaint petition against the petitioner and other accused persons for the alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging, inter alia, that she was married to the Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 petitioner on 20.5.1994 and after marriage she was taken to her matrimonial home at Village Murari in the district of Jehanabad (Bihar) where she was confronted taunts by her in -laws to the effect that a Maruti Car was not given to her husband -petitioner in dowry. Lots of money was spent on the eve of her marriage in cash and kind but even then, such, items did not satisfy the greed of the accused persons including the petitioner. After some time, according to the family customs, she was sent to her parental home with the instruction that she would be accepted in her matrimonial home only when she would come with a Maruti Car. As the Maruti Car could not be given while she was taken by her husband to her matrimonial home on 9.3.1995, the accused persons abused her and perpetrated torture mentally in various ways. However, she explained that her father was not in a position to meet out such demand whereupon it was alleged that the husband -petitioner assaulted her with slaps. She was regularly abused by her mother - in -law. Yet, she tolerated and lived there, in miseries. After fifteen days, she was sent to her parental home after she confronted mental and physical torture. Her father persuaded the petitioner and other members of the family of her husband but of no avail and from there she was taken to her ancestral matrimonial home while she was bearing pregnancy of seven months. Her miseries again started at the hands of accused persons and she alleged that her husband -petitioner assaulted in her abdomen with fists as a result of which there started bleeding and she alaborted at the Kurji Hospital, Patna where she was brought for the treatment of her injuries. In the meantime, petitioner husband got a job at Bokaro General Hospital and he again started visiting her home while she was living with her parents at Bokaro and there also again he raised demand of a Maruti Car. On 18.4.1998, petitioner came at her parental house in the night at about 7: 00 p.m. where she was living and demanded Maruti Car and that in spite of consistent persuasion of her parents. the petitioner started assaulting the complainant with slaps and fists and returned back. She immediately went to the police station but as the police refused to register F.I.R., she lodged a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro which was numbered as C.P. Case No. 98 of 1998. All the accused persons including the petitioner appeared and obtained their bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after framing of charges in the relevant sections of the offence. all the accused including the petitioner husband were put on trial. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. However after evidence of the defence was closed and the case was fixed for evidence a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner -accused under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by requesting therein to call for handwriting expert for proving certain documents as contained in the petition but the same was dismissed by the trial Magistrate only on the ground that certain documents could be admitted as exhibits on the admission of the other side and that though certain medical prescriptions were available with the petitioner -accused from before but the same could not be proved during defence evidence and that the case was pending for long time for disposal. The learned counsel admitted that a matrimonial suit was pending in the Court of Principal Juage, Family Court, Bokaro in which certain documents were filed and exhibited. The certified copy of such proved documents were produced on behalf of the defence of the instant criminal case which were secondary in nature and were marked for Identification. The petitioner wanted that the secondary evidence and other documents which were examined may be permitted to be proved by the handwriting expert who had given his report.

(3.) TAKING the considered view. I allow this criminal revision for substantive justice by setting aside the order impugned dated 12.8.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 98 of 1998 with the direction that all the exercise of proving documents by according opportunity to both the sides must be concluded within a period of one month after receipt of this order or presentation of a copy in the court so that the complaint case could be disposed of preferably within next one month.