- (1.) This cr. Misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3.11.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Kota in Cr. Revision Petition No. 144/2006, whereby the revision petition has been partly dismissed, which was filed against the order dated 19.6.2006 passed by trial court in Cr. Case No. 7/2005, whereby cognizance under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was taken against the accused petitioners. Brief facts of the case are as under: "Complainant-respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. In that complaint, it was mentioned that she was married on 15.4.2001 with Sanjay Acharya. After marriage, a baby "Hunny" was born on 14th March, 2002. On 6.11.2002, the complainant-respondent no.2 went her parental house at Kota on certain family occasions, but did not return to her matrimonial home since then. On 15.9.2004, petitioner-husband Sanjay Acharya gave a notice to the complainant, in which it was mentioned either to join him or to take a divorce from him. On 5.12.2004, after receiving the aforesaid legal notice, the complainant lodged a false and concocted FIR against the petitioners including the married sister-in-law for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. On 31.12.2004, after thorough investigation, the police submitted a Final Report. Thereafter the complainant filed a protest petition and got recorded her statement and other witnesses under Sections 200 202 CrPC. The trial court took cognizance against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC vide order dated 19.6.2006. Against the said order dated 19.6.2006 passed by the trial court, the accused petitioners filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Kota, but the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kota vide order dated 3.11.2006. Against the said orders dated 19.6.2006 and 3.11.2006 passed by the courts below, this cr. Misc. petition was preferred."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahendra Goyal has contended that the findings given by the courts below are illegal, perverse and against the material on record, as such the orders dated 19.6.2006 and 3.11.2006 passed by the courts below deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the revisional court has not taken into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case at all in a very lackluster manner and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 3.11.2006. He has further contended that the police officer after investigation, submitted the final report, but upon that Final Report, the learned Magistrate while taking the cognizance has not given grounds for disagreement with the grounds given by the Investigating Officer. He has further contended that both the parties have entered into the consent divorce on 30.8.2008, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "3. XXX XXX XXX. 4. XXX XXX XXX. 5. XXX XXX XXX."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that albeit the consent divorce was given by the respondent no.2, but she is not fulfilling the condition. He has further contended that it is the consistent view of this High Court and other High Courts also that at the time of taking cognizance, the Court should have given the reasons for disagreement with the grounds given by the Investigating Officer. For that purpose, he has cited the following judgment: Ajaipal versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.,2012 3 CrLR 1280 Further he has drawn the attention of this Court towards territorial jurisdiction and for that purpose, he has cited the following judgment: Bhura Ram and others Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 11 SCC 103.;