Criminal revision challenging rejection of discharge in a dowry cruelty case. The court upheld the magistrate's well-reasoned order finding sufficient prima facie material including specific FIR allegations and witness statements, and rejected the jurisdiction objection since no such plea was raised below. Revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 17 of 2019
… … Petitioners
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioners : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. S.B. Gupta, Advocate ---
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, in connection with Hatiya (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 05/2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4076/2013, registered under sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s ¾ of the dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the prayer for discharge made on behalf of the petitioners under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected and the same is pending for framing of charge.
3. This case was filed way back in 05.01.2019 and it has been informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that the matter is still pending for framing of charge and the next date is 16.03.2024. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, she has already expired but no document in support of the same has been filed by the petitioners before this Court.
4. Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order refusing to discharge has submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is cousin mother-in-law (mausi saas) of the informant and in the first information report there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no. 2. He has also submitted that all the incidents have taken place at Patna and the case has been registered in Ranchi. The learned counsel has further submitted that the case was registered as a counter blast of
2
Matrimonial (Div.) Suit No. 43 of 2013 filed by the petitioners before the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the impugned order refusing to discharge has been rightly passed. Learned counsel submits that F.I.R. by itself is not the encyclopedia of all the materials and the impugned order has been passed after considering the materials collected during investigation.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that impugned order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the learned court below which is a well-reasoned order taking into consideration the materials collected during investigation and also the allegation made in the F.I.R. The learned court below after scrutinizing the materials has recorded that there are sufficient materials on record to indicate a prima facie case and has rejected the application for discharge. 7. The petitioners have not filed a copy of the petition for discharge filed before the learned court below for perusal and consideration. However, from perusal of the impugned order it appears that the submissions were made that there was no evidence available on record to prove the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged allegation of cruelty to the informant and demand of dowry and finally ousted from the matrimonial home. It was also argued before the learned court that both the petitioners are old ladies and suffering from old days complications and that the allegation made by the informant in her written report is totally fabricated and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case.
8. This court finds that allegation of demand, torture, ill-treatment, abuse and deprivation of adequate food etc. have been made against the informant and upon death of father-in-law of the informant she was abused and tortured by alleging that she was responsible for his death and ultimately the brother brought her back from Patna and thereafter the informant filed the criminal case. From the perusal of the F.I.R. itself it is apparent that after the informant was forced to leave her matrimonial house, the torture continued and on 30th December 2012, her husband had come to Ranchi and abused all the
3
family members of the informant and also assaulted the informant. Therefore, the argument of the petitioners that there was no cause of action at Ranchi is not correct. Further no such plea of jurisdiction was raised before the learned court below as it appears from the impugned order.
9. It further appears from the impugned order that the learned court upon considering the materials has recorded that in the F.I.R. there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners being involved in committing cruelty and demanding dowry from the informant and her family members and further the statement of the witnesses including the informant and independent witnesses have also been discussed who had supported the case of the prosecution. It has also been recorded that the petitioners were residing with the informant. This Court finds that the learned court upon discussion of materials on record found enough material to proceed against the petitioners. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order and there is no illegality, perversity or irregularity calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
10. This court finds that the impugned order has discussed the materials collected during investigation and refused to discharge the petitioners. After going through the impugned order this court finds that much more than a prima-facie case has been made out against the petitioners for the alleged offences and the petitioners and informant had acted as per common intention when the entire allegation is considered in totality. This court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
11. However, any observation made in this order will have no bearing on the merits of the case at the stage of trial and it will be open to the petitioners to take all points as may be permissible under law. Dismissal of this case will not prejudice either party.
12. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the magistrate's order rejecting discharge under section 239 CrPC against the petitioners in a 498A/dowry case was illegal or perverse.
Whether territorial jurisdiction at Ranchi was improper given the alleged incidents occurred at Patna.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Madhuri Lata Pandey
Archana Saraswati
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
