MS. BINA KUMARI MISHRA AND ANOTHER Vs. MRS. PROMILA MISHRA W/O LT. DHRUBA DEO MISHRA
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-136
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 23,2018

Ms. Bina Kumari Mishra And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Mrs. Promila Mishra W/O Lt. Dhruba Deo Mishra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MIR ALFAZ ALI,J. - (1.) By this petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973 the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. Motion No. 3(2)/2008 and the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby processes were issued against the present petitioners in CR No. 600/2008.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the respondent No. 1 lodged an FIR against Punya Deo Misra and Upendra Misra alleging attempt to commit rape on her. On being instigated by other accused persons, said Punya Deo Misra and Upendra Misra lodged a false complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Golokganj against the respondent No. 1, Manoj Mahato and three brothers of the respondent No. 1 making some defamatory allegations against the respondent No. 1. The CJM, Golokganj having found lack of territorial jurisdiction, returned the complaint and directed the complainant to lodge the complaint in the court at Kokrajhar. On 07.01.2008, accused Upendra Misra and Indradeo Misra along with the members of their family came to Kokrajhar to attend Shradh ceremony of the mother of the accused Punya Misra, where the accused persons including the present petitioners rebuked the respondent No. 1 by using slang words calling her (respondent) prostitute and concubine of Manoj Mahato. They used to abuse her using such defamatory language on several occasions and they also threatened the respondent No. 1 to vacate the house of her husband. All the accused persons named in the complaint including the present petitioners spread false and defamatory statement among the relatives of the accused and the respondent No. 1 that the complainant had illicit relation with Manoj Mahato and she herself killed her husband with the intent to maintain her illicit relation with said Manoj Mahato. The accused persons including the present petitioners on 15.03.2008 and 22.03.2008 threatened the respondent No. 1 to withdraw the sessions case filed against Punyadeo and Upendra or to face dire consequences. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 lodged the complainant and the learned Addl. CJM, on the basis of the said complaint took cognizance of offence under Section 500 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC and issued summons to the accused Punyadeo Misra, Upendra Misra and Indradeo Misra. However, the Magistrate did not issue any process against the present petitioners.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said order of learned Addl. CJM not issuing process against the present petitioners, the respondent No. 1 preferred a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was registered as Crl. Motion 3(2)/2008. Learned Sessions Judge while allowing the criminal revision directed the learned Addl. CJM to re-consider the complaint and remanded the matter back to the learned Addl. CJM. Learned Addl. CJM by order dated 13.12.2010 recorded a finding that there was prima facie material to proceed against all the accused persons and accordingly issued process against all the accused persons named in the complaint including the present petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.