Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 364 (JHR)

Bulaki Das @ Bulaki Rabidas v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-03-15

body2002
ORDER Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. The petitioners, in this application, have challenged the order dated 7/8th October, 2001, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2001, setting aside the order dated 12.1.2001, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, in P.C.R. No. 361 of 2000, whereby, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the complaint case, filed by opposite party No. 2, Shila Devi, under Sections 498A, 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Against the order dated 12.1.2001, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, in P.C.R. No. 361 of 2000, opposite party No. 2, Shila Devi, preferred Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2001, which was allowed and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, was directed to issue process against the petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Shila Devi was married with Niranjan Kumar Das (petitioner No. 3) on 26.4.1999, she went to her sasural but alleged that she was being tortured for demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-. When the amount, as demanded, was not paid, then the petitioners conspired together to kill her by pouring kerosin oil. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate held enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and examined four witnesses, namely, 1. Ram Das, 2. Phuldhar Parihar, 3. Naresh Das and 4. Jaldhar das. Thereafter, he dismissed the complaint petition, filed by opposite parry No. 2, Shila Devi, on the ground of frivolous and vexatious allegations against the petitioners. 5. Petitioner No. 3 (Niranjan Kumar Das), husband of the complainant (Shila Devi) is now in service. After marriage on 26.4.1999 he lived peacefully along with his wife. There was no grievance against the petitioners regarding ill- treatment or demand of dowry. When the complainant was ill, she was treated by these petitioners on 9.3.2000 by Dr. Dilip Kumar Keshari, on 21,3.2000 by Dr. Mrs. Mridula Vivakar, Sadar Hospital, Dumka. She ws also examined by the Doctor at Bhagalpur Clinical Laboratory, Dumka on 16.4.2000 She was continuously under the treatment, which is clear from the prescriptions of the Doctors, annexed with this application. The complainant Shila Devi herself remained under treatment from 12.5.2000 to 14.5.2000 under Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Dumka. as she was suffering from pain in the lower abdomen. The complainant Shila Devi herself remained under treatment from 12.5.2000 to 14.5.2000 under Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Dumka. as she was suffering from pain in the lower abdomen. She was also admitted in Sadar Hospital, Dumka. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though the complainant, Shila Devi, wife of petitioner No. 3 Niranjan Kumar Das, was suffering from various diseases including venereal disease, she was treated by these petitioners throughout, but on 4.6.2000 Manoj Kumar along with Prasadi Das and five unknown persons came to the house of these petitioners and threatened them, which was informed by petitioner No. 1 Bulaki Rabidas vide P.C.R. Case No. 139 of 2000. During this period, the complainants Bidagari was not allowed and was refused thrice for which pleaders notice was issued on 28.8.2000. Even then at the instigations of father and brothers, the complainants Shila Devi did not go to lead happy life with petitioner No. 3 rather a complaint case was filed. 7. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in his detailed order has also considered the statements and depositions in Complaint Case No. 361 of 2000 in which he fould that the complainant herself had not raised anything against these petitioners regarding torture and demand of dowry. The learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate has also considered the evidence of the four witnesses, produced in course of enquiry. The victim lady herself deposed on 15.5.2000 on oath that she is living peacefully in her husbands house happily, since after her marriage. She has no complain against the family members of her husband. In view of this fact, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate opined that there was no any torture for demand of dowry or assault. In view of the facts, aforesaid, the complaint case, filed by Shila Devi was dismissed. However, the learned Revisional Court, set aside the order on the ground that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has considered the evidence of complainant in Complaint Case No. 139 of 2000, while passing the order in Complaint case No. 361 of 2000. 8. Whatever may be the case in both the complaint cases, the fact remains that Shila Devi (complainant) was married with petitioner No. 3 Niranjan Kumar Das, who was made accused in complaint case No. 361 of 2000 and a similar case was filed, resulting the institution of Complaint Case No. 139 of 2000. 8. Whatever may be the case in both the complaint cases, the fact remains that Shila Devi (complainant) was married with petitioner No. 3 Niranjan Kumar Das, who was made accused in complaint case No. 361 of 2000 and a similar case was filed, resulting the institution of Complaint Case No. 139 of 2000. When Shila Devi had not complained regarding torture and demand of dowry and the case is allowed to proceed by summoning these petitioners to face trial, then the fact of the case would not be changed, in view of the statements of the witnesses, recorded in course of enquiry. Although it will not be a substantive piece of evidence in course of trial, even then the truth remains that Shila Devi is living happily. In her deposition she has not complained against any one of her sasurals people, then it is needless to harass the petitioners as also the complainant in litigation by attending Court, when the result is known, which is clear from the statements in the earlier complaint case, as deposed by the complainant Shila Devi herself. 9. In view of the facts, stated above, I find that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has considered the statement recorded in Complaint Case No. 139 of 2000 and in course of enquiry under Section 202 recorded the statements of other four witnesses and also considered the present case bearing complaint Case No. 361 of 2000. There appears no illegality to find out the truth of the case. 10. In the result, I find substance in this Cr. Misc. Petition and find no merit in the order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2001, which is ac cordingly, set aside and the order, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. in P.C.R No. 361 of 2000, on 12.1.2001 dismissing the case of the complainant is hereby affirmed.