Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1200 (AP)

Mohd. Gyasuddin v. Jahangeer Karanjaiah

2002-10-07

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2002
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) ORDER dismissing Crl. M. P. No. 3259 of 2002 in C. C. No. 649 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is the subject matter of this petition. ( 2 ) PRIVATE complaint filed by the petitioner against 1st respondent and others, for offences under Sections 420, 498-A read with Section 120-B, IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. for investigation. After investigation the police laid a charge-sheet for offences under Section 498-A read with Section 120-B, IPC against the 1st respondent and others. On a petition filed by the 1st respondent for discharge on the ground that there is no material on record to frame a charge against him i. e. 1st respondent, the learned Magistrate discharged the 1st respondent from the case. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision in Crl. R. P. No. 40 of 2000 before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate discharging 1st respondent from the case and the said order was confirmed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Crl. P. No. 123 of 2002. Thereafter the learned Magistrate framed charges under Section 498-A IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the 1st respondent and the other accused. Thereafter prosecution filed Crl. M. P. No. 3259 of 2002 with a prayer to frame a charge under S. 420, IPC against 1st respondent. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, dismissed the said petition holding that there is no prima facie material to frame a charge under Section 420, IPC against 1st respondent. Questioning the said order, the de facto complainant filed this petition. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the private complaint and the charge sheet filed by the police clearly show that 1st respondent cheated the petitioner and others by concealing the fact that he was a Parsi earlier, and later converted to Islam, the learned Magistrate was in error in dismissing the petition filed by the prosecution to frame a charge under Section 420, IPC. The learned counsel took me through the order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl. The learned counsel took me through the order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge in Crl. R. P. No. 40 of 2000 and the order of the learned single Judge in Crl. P. No. 123 of 2002, and the statements of LWs. 1 and 2 recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and contended that since this Court clearly held in Crl. P. No. 123 of 2002 that the allegation against all the accused is uniform, it is clear that this Court earlier gave a finding that there is prima facie case for offence under Section 420, IPC also against all the accused and so the learned Magistrate ought to have framed charge under Section 420, IPC on the basis of the clear allegations in the complaint filed by the petitioner. ( 4 ) I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has to be framed on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint filed by the petitioner. It should be remembered that the complaint filed by the petitioner was referred to the police for investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. and the police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet for offences under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which prima facie, means that their investigation did not reveal ingredients showing commission of an offence under Section 420, IPC by any of the accused. I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least in view of the order of this Court in Crl. P. No. 123 of 2002 charge under S. 420, IPC has to be framed. In that petition this Court while considering the order of the learned Sessions Judge allowing the petition filed by the prosecution questioning the order of discharge of 1st respondent from the case passed by the learned Magistrate, held that since the allegations against all the accused are the same there is prima facie case for proceeding against 1st respondent also. This Court did not hold in that order that there is prima facie case for an offence under Section 420, IPC against 1st respondent. ( 5 ) THE statement of the petitioner recorded under S. 161, Cr. This Court did not hold in that order that there is prima facie case for an offence under Section 420, IPC against 1st respondent. ( 5 ) THE statement of the petitioner recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. shows that even before the marriage he was informed by the 1st respondent that they originally belonged to Parsi religion and later converted to Islam and that their children are Muslims. When petitioner in his statement record under S. 161, Cr. P. C. clearly stated that prior to the marriage of his daughter he knew that his prospective son-in-law was born to a Parsi, who converted to Islam and married a Muslim woman it is clear that 1st resplendent did not hide his original religion from the petitioner before the marriage of his son with the daughter of the petitioner. Therefore question of 1st respondent cheating the petitioner by not disclosing his original religion does not arise. Charges have to be framed on the basis of the material on record like charge sheet, statements of witnesses, recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. and the other documents, if any, produced by the prosecution. The allegations made in the private complaint filed by the petitioner pale into insignificance because they were investigated into by the police. So the allegations in the complaint alone, without any supporting material, cannot form the basis for framing a charge. ( 6 ) SINCE none of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. show that 1st respondent falsely represented that he was a Muslim by concealing that he was earlier a Parsi by religion, question of misrepresentation by 1st respondent does not arise and so the learned Magistrate dismissing the petition for framing a charge under S. 420, IPC cannot be said to be erroneous and so I find no merits in this petition. ( 7 ) THEREFORE the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.