Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 827 (JHR)

Parmeshwar Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-21

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2015
ORDER: This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Revision No. 78 of 2014, whereby he dismissed the revision application and affirmed the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R.No. 6172 of 2011, corresponding to Mahila P.S. case no. 35 of 2011, whereby petition filed by the present petitioners under section 239 Cr. P.C. has been rejected. Petitioner further prayed for quashing the aforesaid order dated 12.02.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R. No. 6172, corresponding to Mahila P.S. case no. 35 of 2011. 2. It is submitted that the informant Mukta Jaiswal had filed a written report before the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila Police Station, Ranchi alleging therein that she has been harassed and tortured by her husband and parent-in-laws (petitioners) for demand of dowry. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Mahila P.S. case no. 35 of 2011 dated 08.12.2011 instituted under section 498(A) I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It further appears that police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons, including the petitioners. Thereafter, learned court below took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter, an application filed by the petitioners under section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12.02.2014 on coming to the conclusion that prima facie offence under section 498(A) I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act made out against the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners filed criminal revision against the aforesaid order of learned Judicial Magistrate, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2014. The aforesaid criminal revision was dismissed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 28.2.2015. Against the aforesaid orders, present application has been filed. 3. Shri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that from perusal of F.I.R. and other materials available on record, it is clear that almost all the occurrences took place at Bangalore, where informant was residing with her husband. He further submits that petitioners are residing at Ranchi and there is no allegation against them that they tortured the informant for demand of dowry. Accordingly, Sri Sinha submits that no offence made out against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned Addl. He further submits that petitioners are residing at Ranchi and there is no allegation against them that they tortured the informant for demand of dowry. Accordingly, Sri Sinha submits that no offence made out against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that from perusal of F.I.R., it appears that there are allegations against these petitioners that they have demanded dowry from the informant and harassed/tortured her for said demand. She further submits that learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi had considered all the materials collected during the investigation and came to the conclusion that prima facie offences under section 498(A) I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, she submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. Therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. In the F.I.R., it is specifically stated that when informant was residing with her husband in her in-laws' house, on 02.01.2010, she was threatened by her husband on the instigation of his parents that in the event of failure to bring the dowry, he would divorce her. It is further alleged that husband of the informant and his parents indulged in committing mental, emotional and physical torture. It is further alleged that on 13.10.2011, she came to Ranchi and resided at her matrimonial house. She further alleged that on 26.10.2011 at about 5:00 P.M. she was thrown out of her inlaws' house and all the accused persons repeatedly said that unless their demand is fulfilled, she cannot be allowed to enter inside their house. The aforesaid allegations have been reiterated by the informant in her subsequent statement made before the police in course of investigation. The aforesaid allegations find support from the statements of witnesses at paragraph nos. 10 and 11. 7. From perusal of impugned orders passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi as well as Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, I find that they have not considered the materials available on record and concluded that prima facie offences made out against the petitioners under section 498(A) I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, I find no irregularity and/or illegality in the aforesaid orders, which require any interference by this Court. 8. In view of the discussions made above, this application is dismissed. Thus, I find no irregularity and/or illegality in the aforesaid orders, which require any interference by this Court. 8. In view of the discussions made above, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.