Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1904 (ALL)

LATEEF @ TARJAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-07-22

SURENDRA KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surendra Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. The revisionists, who have been summoned by the trial Court to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. vide summoning order dated 14.11.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 2433/IX of 2002, Smt. Nasreen v. Lateef @ Tarjan and others, Police Station Mahila, District Jhansi on finding a prima facie case against them, challenged the summoning order in this Court by way of filing this criminal revision. 2. The relevant facts for deciding this revision are that Smt. Nasreen, who is opposite party No. 2 herein, filed a complaint in the trial Court alleging therein that she was married to Lateef @ Tarjan on 6.6.1992 according to Mohammadan Law. Her parents gave sufficient dowry in the marriage but the accused persons who are revisionists herein, namely, Lateef @ Tarjan (husband), Majeed (Jeth), Smt. Chando (mother-in-law), Smt Irshadi (Nanad), Imam (father-in-law), Smt. Jareena (Nanad) and Malthu, were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they demanded Rs. 10,000/- and one scooter. The victim Smt. Nasreen was sent to her parental house for bringing these items. Some Panchayat was convened and on the assurance of the accused persons-revisionists, the victim Smt. Nasreen was sent to her Sasural, where she gave birth to two female children and out of them, one female child died. Again dowry demand was repeated and she was tortured and when the said dowry demand was not fulfilled, she was again expelled from matrimonial home with her newly born female child. It was on 8.7.1997, during repeating dowry demand, she was beaten and she sustained injuries. Again dowry demand was repeated and she was tortured and when the said dowry demand was not fulfilled, she was again expelled from matrimonial home with her newly born female child. It was on 8.7.1997, during repeating dowry demand, she was beaten and she sustained injuries. She filed a private complaint in the Court of IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. On the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2, all the accused persons were summoned and on the assurance of the accused persons that they would keep her happily without torturing her and without dowry demand, she entered into some compromise and it was on the basis of compromise in the Court, the accused persons were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 14.7.1999 passed by the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 940 of 1997, Smt. Nasreen v. Lateef @ Tarjan, Police Station Premnagar, Jhansi. In that case, the victim lady in her evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C. deposed that on 8.7.1997 her husband did not demand scooter and Rs. 10,000/- in dowry and she was not beaten as she is living with her husband happily. Thus, first judgment dated 14.7.1999 was passed on the testimony of the victim lady in which she denied the allegation of cruelty and dowry demand under the assumption that she was happily living with her husband and she did not want to disturb her peaceful life believing that her husband would keep her happily. 3. The wife Smt. Nasreen mentioned all these relevant facts in second complaint, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2433/IX of 2002, Smt. Nasreen v. Lateef @ Tarjan and six others. In the second complaint, the victim lady clearly alleged that after acquittal of the accused persons in the complaint case in the year 1999 as a result of compromise between two parties, she was taken back to her in-laws house but they repeated dowry demand of scooter and Rs. 10,000/-, failing which she was beaten and on 3.9.2002 she was expelled from her matrimonial house by the accused persons, warning her to fulfill the said demand within eight days otherwise her husband would perform second marriage with one Shallo. 10,000/-, failing which she was beaten and on 3.9.2002 she was expelled from her matrimonial house by the accused persons, warning her to fulfill the said demand within eight days otherwise her husband would perform second marriage with one Shallo. According to second complaint, she was expelled from her matrimonial house with her wearing clothes and her ornaments and clothes were retained by the accused persons. She went to the police station but her report was not lodged. She got herself medically examined and obtained a injury report then she was compelled to file a private complaint, which she ultimately filed on 10.9.2002. 4. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the victim under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and also perusing the injury report of the victim lady etc., passed the impugned summoning order, whereby all the accused persons, who are revisionists herein, were summoned under the aforesaid sections to face trial. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that since the revisionist husband was acquitted by the trial Court in the first complaint, the second complaint cannot be filed against him and other accused persons-revisionists in view of Section 300 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned A.G.A. inviting my attention to the provisions of Section 300 Cr.P.C. defended the impugned summoning order saying that since the facts constituting the offence are quite different from the facts alleged in the complaint, the accused persons-revisionists can be tried for the different offences based on different set of facts and there is no legal bar to the prosecution to constitute the offence on the basis of second complaint. Section 300 Cr.P.C. provides as follows : “300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.— (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. (2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220.” 7. I have considered the provisions of Section 300 Cr.P.C. and other material on record including the injury report of the victim Smt. Nasreen which was prepared after conducting medical examination on her person after the second incident. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order. The allegations levelled against the revisionists are supported by prima facie evidence and the learned trial Court only after finding a prima facie case against them, summoned them as stated above. All the relevant facts are mentioned in the impugned summoning order in which no interference at this stage by this Court is required. The criminal revision is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 24.1.2003 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. 8. It may be mentioned here that the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is continuing offence, which took place at different times and different places and it cannot be read in isolation. The victim Smt. Nasreen clearly stated on oath about the cruelty and dowry demand made by the accused persons. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionists assured this Court that all the accused persons will appear in the trial Court on the date fixed. Believing assurance given by their counsel, all the revisionists are directed to appear in the trial Court on 20.8.2013. If the accused persons do not appear in the trial Court on the date fixed then the trial Court is free to take coercive steps against them as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code but not to delay the further proceeding of this case. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information to proceed with the case on priority basis, if possible on day-to-day basis as the complaint is 11 years old. —————