Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 426 (RAJ)

Inderjeet v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. -By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code" hereinafter), the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.42/2004, whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A I PC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charges against the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code, which are sought to be produced, are contradictory and therefore, the trial Court fell in error in framing the charges against the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant support the order impugned. 4. I have carefully gone through the statements of complainant Smt. Pushpa, the wife of petitioner No. 3. She categorically stated that at the time of marriage, her parents gave the dowry articles shown by her in statement, which were entrusted to the petitioners. The petitioners, after about two months of the marriage, started subjecting her to cruelty and harassed her on account of bringing less dowry. There was consistent demand by the petitioners for gold chain and cash amount in dowry. 5. From the statements of complainant Smt. Pushpa and other witnesses, there is prima facie sufficient evidence to presume that the petitioners harassed the complainant and subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and also failed to return her dowry articles and thus misappropriated the same. 6. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the evidence on record is not required to be meticulously examined and it is not the requirement of law that at the time of framing of charges, to see whether that evidence is sufficient to establish the offence. The requirement of law that there should be ground prima facie to presume that the accused have committed the offence, for which they have been charged. In the instant case, there is sufficient material on record to presume that the petitioners committed the offence, for which have been charged. The requirement of law that there should be ground prima facie to presume that the accused have committed the offence, for which they have been charged. In the instant case, there is sufficient material on record to presume that the petitioners committed the offence, for which have been charged. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 7. The revision petition is dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******