OVER SIAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.12.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Revision No.26 of 2004 whereby learned court below has set aside the order dated 17.8.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara and held that a prima facie case under Sections 323, 498A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the court had wrongly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) MR . Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken a very short point and submitted that from the entire allegation, no offence under sections 498A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out in this case but the learned Revisional court has erroneously held that a prima facie case under Sections 323 and 498A has been made out.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel and considered the submissions as also the facts and materials on record. From the complaint petition, there does not appear to be any allegation of demand by the petitioner. Mere allegation of harassment in the complaint does not constitute an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. The Said section though provides for punishment to the husband or relatives of the husband of women if there is allegation of cruelty by the woman but in the explanation -B attached to the section, cruelty has been distinctly defined. According to the said explanation, cruelty/ harassment must be for coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.