This revision petition challenged the order dismissing the application for discharge of petitioners-accused in a cheating and dowry case. The High Court found merit in the trial court's finding of entrustment and existence of a prima facie case, dismissing the revision.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.810 of 2001 Date of Decision 23.07.2010
Mukesh Kumar and others
...... Petitioners
VERSUS
Smt.Kamla @ Rita
...... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.03.2001, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, dismissing the application for discharge of the petitioners-accused.
Respondent-complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 406, 498-A & 120-B read with Section 34 IPC wherein they were summoned. The present petitioners had earlier filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said complaint and summoning order dated 21.10.1999 before this Court which was disposed of on 31.10.2000. Now, being aggrieved against the order dismissing their application for discharge dated 15.03.2001, they have come up in revision.
Heard, the trial Court appears to have met all the issues raised by the complainant. As regards the issue of entrustment, sufficient evidence has been led. It is apparent from the allegations in the complaint as well as in the preliminary evidence that the accused were entrusted with the articles of dowry which they misappropriated.
Criminal Revision No.810 of 2001 -2-
As regards the issue of jurisdiction, it has been specifically averred that the marriage was solemnized and so also the dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioners at Ludhiana, therefore, the jurisdiction of Ludhiana Court could not be challenged. It would also be pertinent to observe at this stage that the Court at the stage of framing the charge against the accused, has not to delve deep into the question whether the accused are to be convicted or acquitted. Existence of prima facie case against the accused persons is sufficient to proceed against them.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is
dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
23.07.2010 mamta-II
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dismissing the application for discharge of petitioners-accused in a case involving dowry and cheating deserves revision.
Whether the trial court erred in finding that insufficient evidence existed to dismiss the discharge application.
Whether the jurisdiction of the Ludhiana court was correctly challenged by the petitioner.
Mukesh Kumar and others
Smt.Kamla @ Rita
A.N.Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
