- (1.) K. N. Ojha, J. Instant revision has been preferred against order dated 13-11-2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in F. R. No. 177 of 2000 summoning the accused revisionists to face the trial under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) HEARD Sri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri R. R. K. Mishra learned A. G. A. and Sri Sanjeev Ratan, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 and have gone through the record. The fact of the case is that Smt. Deeksha Rastogi moved application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad for investigation against the revisionist which was allowed on 16-2- 2002 FIR of Smt. Deeksha Rastogi was registered at crime No. 19 of 2000 under the above mentioned sections at police station Civil Lines, Allahabad containing the fact that she was married with revisionist No. 1 Mukesh Rastogi on 21-1-1996 in New Delhi. Maruti car, cash, ornaments, furniture, electronic goods etc. were given in the marriage, but her husband Mukesh Rastogi, revisionist No. 1, mother-in-law Smt. Kanta Rastogi, revisionist No. 2, Jyestha Kamal Rastogi, revisionist No. 3, Jyethani Smt. Kiran Rastogi, revisionist No. 4, another Jyestha Kailash Mohan Rastogi, revisionist No. 5 and another Jyethani Smt. Sushma Rastogi, revisionist No. 6 were not satisfied with the presents given in the marriage. After the marriage she went to the residence of her husband and started to live in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Revisionists started to make demand of Rs. 7 lacs and the demand being not satisfied, they started to cause torture. On 11- 10-1997 these persons caused injuries with kicks and fist causing fracture to both of her knee and she was expelled from the house. She send information to her brother who lives in Keshipur, Udham Singh Nagar. Since before one year, the FIR was lodged, she has been living at the residence of her sister Smt. Madhu Rastogi at Stretchy Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad. It is said that on 23rd January, 2000 her husband came to the residence of her sister in Allahabad, caused injuries to her and threatened with dire consequence in case she would not go to Delhi along with money demanded. After investigation, final report was submitted but Smt. Deeksha Rastogi filed protest petition on which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad directed that final report could not be accepted and the case would proceed as complaint case. Statement of Smt. Deeksha Rastogi was recorded under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and one witness Smt. Madhu Rastogi under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and impugned order dated 13-11-2000 was passed and the revisionists were summoned to face the trial.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionists submits that the statement under Sections 2000 and 202 Cr. P. C. has been made in respect of two occurrence. One relates to 11-10-1997 which is said to have taken place in New Delhi in which all the revisionists were involved, but no FIR was lodged at that time nor medical examination of injuries was got done. The another occurrence relates to 23-1-2000 in which it is said that injuries were caused by the revisionist No. 1 Mukesh Rastogi to Smt. Deeksha Rastogi at Allahabad. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that both the incidents relate to different time and place and there is sufficient gap of time so both the occurrence cannot be said to be in continuation of each other. It is also submitted that occurrence dated 11-10-1997 is said to have taken place in New Delhi and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case except revisionist No. 1 Mukesh Rastogi. Other revisionists have no concern with the occurrence which is said to have taken place at the residence of the sister of Smt. Deeksha Rastogi on 23rd January, 2000 in Allahabad. Thus, it is submitted that the revisionists Nos. 2 to 6 cannot be summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to face the trial in respect of the alleged occurrence which is said to have taken place in the year, 1997. This contention is opposed by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1. It is submitted that at the stage of summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr. P. C. only prima facie, evidence is to be considered which is sufficient for summoning the revisionist. In AIR 1992 SC, 1815 Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, it has been held by Hon'ble the apex Court that" relevant fact and circumstances should be considered before issuing the process under Section 204 Cr. P. C. The process issued mechanically on the basis of the complaint filed as vendetta to harass persons deserves to be quashed because judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process test it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass persons needlessly. ";