Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 934 (HP)

Vikas Kumar v. State of H. P.

2017-08-16

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Petitioners herein are accused in case No. 22-II/2016 pending disposal in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. Respondent No. 2 is the complainant as it is at her instance FIR No. 69 of 2015 has been registered against the accused-petitioners under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC in PS Dehra Gopipur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The order under challenge is Annexure P-3 whereby learned trial Magistrate, on going through the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed against the accused-petitioners and on finding grounds to proceed further against them for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC, has issued process against them. 3. The challenge to the impugned order is on the grounds inter alia that though against the accused-petitioners, no case is made out, however, the learned trial Magistrate has issued the process against them mechanically and without application of mind. The FIR and the investigation conducted do not disclose the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC by either of the accused persons. Otherwise also, the alleged occurrence being of dated 29.11.2010, no Court can take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The marriage according to the accused petitioners was not at all consummated as the complainant, respondent No. 2 herein fell ill on 29.11.2010, the day when after solemnization of marriage she came to matrimonial home and had to be sent back to her parental house with her parents on that day itself. She never visited the matrimonial house thereafter. 4. True it is that as per the FIR itself, the complainant left matrimonial home on 29.11.2010. However, as per the allegations against the accused-petitioners, she fell ill all of a sudden after having milk which was served to her in the matrimonial home. Taking benefit of her condition, the accused petitioners removed all ornaments gifted to her in the marriage by her parents. Thereafter, they called her parents, declared her to be an insane, abused her parents and asked them to take their daughter with them. Taking benefit of her condition, the accused petitioners removed all ornaments gifted to her in the marriage by her parents. Thereafter, they called her parents, declared her to be an insane, abused her parents and asked them to take their daughter with them. Her clothes were also kept by the accused petitioners with them of course with an assurance that as and when she is back to the matrimonial home, the same would be returned to her. It is with these allegations FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC came to be registered against the accused-petitioners. 5. As per the own admission of the accused petitioners, at the time of taking cognizance of the offence, a detailed order is not required to be passed and satisfaction of the Magistrate seized of the matter to issue process against the accused is sufficient to issue process against them. The accused-petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to be aggrieved or dissatisfied from the issuance of process against them, in any manner whatsoever, at this stage as in the opinion of this Court, the record discloses grounds on which learned trial Court has recorded its satisfaction before resorting to issuance of process against the accused petitioners. On entering appearance by them, they are at liberty to raise all questions, including that the report filed by the police does not disclose the commission of any offence by them and also that in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the case registered against them after the expiry of the period of limitation, cognizance of the case against them could have not been taken. As a matter of fact, the accused-petitioners are at liberty to raise all such questions in the Court below even at the stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C. also and in case they are able to convince the trial Court, may seek their discharge from the case. Even they are at liberty to approach this Court again also in case charge against them is ultimately framed on the basis of the final report and the documents annexed there to. 6. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the relief sought in this petition, at this stage, is pre-mature. Even they are at liberty to approach this Court again also in case charge against them is ultimately framed on the basis of the final report and the documents annexed there to. 6. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the relief sought in this petition, at this stage, is pre-mature. Therefore, the petition is dismissed, of course with liberty reserved to the accused petitioners to raise all legal questions in the trial Court at an appropriate stage and if they still feel aggrieved or dissatisfied, to approach this Court again for redressal of their grievances, if so advised. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.