Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2580 (RAJ)

Gopal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-26

SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

body2005
Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, has been directed against the order dated 07.08.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jr. Division, 1st Class, Bikaner in Case No.604/2002 taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498A and 406 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that complainant respondent No.2 filed a complaint inter-alia stating that her marriage was solemnized as per hindu customs & rituals on 21.02.1997 with petitioner No.1 Gopal Sharma and her parents gave her sufficient ornaments and dowry but after some time of the marriage the petitioners started demanding more dowry and harassing her. To fulfil their demands, her father gave Rs.30,000/-to them but despite that they did not satisfy and started harassing her more & more and even gave beatings but she tolerated. It was also stated that on 112.1998 her husband Gopal Sharma, Omprakash, Sitaram and Radheyshyam threatened her that either she should bring 2 lac rupees or seek divorce else they would kill her by burning etc. 3. FIR No. 44/2000 was registered at Police Station Napasar and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet against two persons and filed negative report in respect of other eight persons against whom also the complaint was made. Against that, the petitioners filed a revision before the lower Court and the complainant also filed a protest petition on 211.2000 stating that her complaint be also taken into consideration with the case file under Section 210 CrPC and the matter may be inquired on that basis. 4. After filing of challan in the Court and on receipt of the file from revisonal Court, arguments were heard on cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Bikaner in relation to the application filed by complainant Anusuiya Sharma and the statement of complainant was recorded under Section 200 CrPC. Statements of Purshottam, Vishnukant Joshi, Gopal Joshi, and Amar Chand were also recorded under Section 202 CrPC. 5. The complainant-respondent before the Judicial Magistrate reiterated the averments made in the complaint and the other witnesses supported her. The learned Magistrate, prima facie, finding a case of taking cognizance under Section 498-A and 406 IPC against others also, took cognizance and they were summoned through bailable warrants. 6. Aggrieved, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. 7. The learned Magistrate, prima facie, finding a case of taking cognizance under Section 498-A and 406 IPC against others also, took cognizance and they were summoned through bailable warrants. 6. Aggrieved, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. 7. The case of the petitioners is that the complainant has filed a false case against the petitioners as the complainants behaviour was very rude, harsh and cruel against the petitioners and especially against her husband Gopal Sharma -petitioner No.1, and looking to the rude behaviour of the complainant after suffering a lot of humiliation from the side of complainant, the husband of the complainant filed a divorce petition on 18.01.2000 at Delhi. The complainant being annoyed with the filing of divorce petition by her husband Gopal Sharma, lodged a false complaint in question before the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner and succeeded to implicate all relatives of petitioner No.1 in false case. 8. It is also the case of the petitioners that the marriage was solemnised in the year 1997 and since then till 2000, the complainant had been living with her husband. According to them, this fact itself shows that petitioner No.1 tolerated the activities of complainant and tried to pursuade her but ultimately when water passed over head, the petitioner No.1 moved divorce petition for peace between the parties. They denied having made any demand of dowry from the complainant. 9. It has also been contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider that petitioners No.2 to 10 have been living separately and they are residents of different locations like Delhi, Village Padiyara District Churu and out of them, one is resident of even Assam State and this fact also shows that petitioners No.2 to 10 were not involved in the matter of demand of dowry from the complainant or her parents. It has been submited that from 24.1999 till filing of complaint, the complainant had been living with her husband separately and there was no connection of petitioners No.2 to 10 with the complaint but despite that the learned Magistrate took cognizance against them for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. 10. It has been further contention of the learned Counsel that Petitioners No.2 to 10 have falsely been roped in this case just to harass them. 10. It has been further contention of the learned Counsel that Petitioners No.2 to 10 have falsely been roped in this case just to harass them. According to him, infact, they were not party to making of demand of dowry or any other activities and they have nothing to do with the said offence. It is said that the complainant filed the complaint just to counter the filing of divorce petition. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for complainant respondent No.2 supported the order passed by learned Court below. 12. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 13. The controversy involved in the case is well settled. Honble the Apex Court in the case of Sampat Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1993 SCC (Cri) 376, has observed:-"It is not for a Court to keep track of an investigation and watch its day to day progress but, when an investigation culminates into a final report as contemplated under Section 173 of CrPC, then the competent Court enjoins a duty within its authoity sanctioned by law to scrupulously scruitinse the final report and the accompaniments by applying its judicial mind and take a decision either to accept or reject the final report". 14. In a case reported in 2003 (2) RCrD 566 (Raj)- Jaishiv Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, which was a case on the same lines as is the present one, the Jaipur Bench of this Court, while taking into consideration the earlier decisions of this Court passed in Jagdish Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1988 (2) WLN 311, Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1990 (2) RLR 29 and Badri vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (1) RLR 568, remanded the case back and directed the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. 15. 15. In view of above, the position is now well settled that a Court need not to keep track of the investigation and watch its day to day progress but when the investigation culminates into a final report the Court has to scruitinse the final report by applying its judicial mind, take decision whether to accept or reject the same, and while taking cognizance after the statements are recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, the Court has to consider the final report as well as the investigation done by the police to determine whether cognizance on the basis of complaint can be taken or not. That has not been done by the learned Magistrate in the present case before passing the order impugned. 16. Consequently, the present revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the order dated 07.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Jr. Division) 1st Class, Bikaner in Case No.604/2002 is set aside and the matter is sent back for proceeding in accordance with law.