Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 724 (PAT)

Ram Kailash Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-12

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. The sole petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No.C 106 of 1997, has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Motihari in Cr. Revision N0.47 of 1998. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 4.12.1997 whereby S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Shri Raj Dular sah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner Submits that the learned Sessions judge,while exercising its revisional jurisdiction had acted as it he was appellate court and that too contrary to the facts and evidence, which were brought on record during the enquiry by the learned S.D.J.M. in Complaint Case No.C 106 of 1997. 3. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner after break of marriage of his daughter with Anirudh Prasad (opposite party no.3), son of Amresh Prasad (opposite party no.2) due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry after completion of the Tilak ceremony, filed the present complaint case. In the complaint case, it was alleged that marriage was settled and thereafter, a date of Tilak ceremony was also fixed. In the Tilak ceremony, several gifts were presented to the accused persons which according to the complainant was for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. After the ceremony of Tilak was complete, the accused persons reached the house of the complainant with further demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and Television. It was alleged in the complaint petition that since the complainant refused to fulfil the demand of dowry, the accused persons refused to solemnize marriage and as such the accused persons had cheated the complainant and also they had committed offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was alleged that after the marriage was fixed, the complainant had also got printed the invitation card and due to act of the accused persons, the reputation of complainant was denigrated in society and on these grounds, complaint petition was filed. After filing complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of complaint case, the complainant examined three witnesses, who according to the complainant, fully supported the case of complainant. After filing complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of complaint case, the complainant examined three witnesses, who according to the complainant, fully supported the case of complainant. 4. Being satisfied with the materials available on record as well as evidences, which were brought by the complainant, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul and Motihari took cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the accused persons filed a revision petition before the court of learned Sessions Judge, East Chaniparan, Motihari vide Cr. Revision No.47 of 1998. The learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision filed by the accused persons, has recorded the ground for allowing the petition particularly in paragraph-6 of its order i.e. order dated 30.1.1999. It is appropriate to quote paragraph-6 of the impugned order, which is as follows : " I also find that from the facts contained in the petition of complaint admittedly whatever items were allegedly given to Anirudh Prasad in the alleged Tilak ceremony the same were gifted. There is no assertion either in the petition of complaint or in the statements of witnesses that those gifted items were pre-condition for the marriage. Therefore, I find that under section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act this fact does not come under the definition of Dowry if the same is read with explanation I. The witnesses seem to be very interested persons towards the complainant-O.P. Even they do not say that any thing was given or agreed to be given by the opposite party to the petitioners as the consideration for the marriage. Even if the fact stated by the witnesses is accepted the marriage negotiation broke out just when allegedly the petitioners demanded a motorbike etc. Then on the same date fixed the opposite party no.2 married his daughter to someone else. This gives an impression that the said marriage negotiation must have been going on from much before with other party." 6. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge particularly on examination of paragraph-6 of the order of learned Sessions Judge, I am of the view that learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in exceeding its jurisdiction. This gives an impression that the said marriage negotiation must have been going on from much before with other party." 6. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge particularly on examination of paragraph-6 of the order of learned Sessions Judge, I am of the view that learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in exceeding its jurisdiction. In a case involving purely question of fact, the learned Sessions Judge exercised its revisional jurisdiction. Even perusal of the order indicates that while allowing the revision, the learned Judge was guided with his presumption. It is evident from last sentence of paragraph-6 of the impugned order, which has been quoted above. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge was not required to exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the order of cognizance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case, the three witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the complainant and supported the case of the complainant and the complaint petition itself depicts the story of demand of dowry and due to non- fulfilment of the demand, the accused persons had un-settled the settled marriage. 7. Shri Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and he supports the order of revisional court. He submits that while allowing the revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge has committed no mistake. He further submits that the complainant himself has admitted that after the proposed marriage with the son of opposite party no.2 was broken, the complainant got her daughter married oh the same day. Further, he submits, the complaint petition was filed after expiry of two months from the date of marriage of the daughter of the complainant. On these grounds, he has made a prayer to reject the present petition. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances hereinabove, I am of the view that the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No.47 of 1998 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the revisional order is hereby set aside. 9. In the result, the learned S.D.J.M. Is at liberty to proceed with the complaint petition in view of order of cognizance. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.