Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1054 (JHR)

Gopi Das @ Gopi Mahra v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-02

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 18.4.2002 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act as well as the order dated 22.7.2003 by which the petition filed under Section 245, Cr. P.C. for discharge was rejected. 3. According to the complaint-petition, the complainant negotiated the marriage of his daughter, namely Inarwa Devi with the accused No. 5, Mahesh Mehra (Petitioner No. 5 herein). The accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Gopi Mahara and Rukmani Devi (Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein) accepted the offer of the complainant for marriage. The accused Nos. 2 to 5 namely, Rukmani Devi, Naresh Mahara, Meena Devi and Mahjesh Mahara came to the village Piparbadiya to see the complainant's daughter and thereafter agreed to marry their son with the daughter of the complainant. It is said that Rs. 51,000 as expenses for the marriage along with the wrist watch and bicycle was given to the accused No. 1 i.e. Gopi Mahara. When the complainant along with the witnesses went to the house of the accused persons on 31.3.2002 for fixing the final date of marriage, it is said that accused Nos. 6 to 9 namely Parmila Devi, Bhim Das, Nakul Das and Basho Mahara refused to fix the date of marriage and started abusing him. Thereafter the complainant went to the village persons of repute but the accused persons did not listen and refused to marry the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station but nothing was done, and then he filed complaint petition. 4. The learned Magistrate after making inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. took cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 245, Cr. P.C. for their discharge mainly on the ground that the girl as well as the boy were minors and therefore, they could not have married. But the fact remains is that the allegation against the petitioners that they accepted the money from the complainant to get the marriage with the accused No. 5, Mahesh Mahara with the daughter of the complainant and thereafter they refused to marry. But the fact remains is that the allegation against the petitioners that they accepted the money from the complainant to get the marriage with the accused No. 5, Mahesh Mahara with the daughter of the complainant and thereafter they refused to marry. The question whether the body and the girl are minors would come later on because that requires evidence to-be gone into. 6. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence of the witnesses examined before charge came to the conclusion that there were materials to frame charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the prayer for discharge of the accused persons were rejected. 7. In this view of the facts noticed above, I do not see any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismissed. 8. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. Application dismissed.