H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.25/2002 (167/1996), whereby the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners and co-accused Hanuman Prasad for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charges, the petitioners have filed the instant revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the order impugned as also the challan papers. Complainant Smt.Shashibala filed a complaint before the trial Court against the present petitioners, co-accused Hanuman Prasad, as also against Mahendra Kumar and Pravajan Lal in all against six persons. The said complaint was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation. On receipt of the complaint, the police registered Crime Report No.56/ 1996. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioners and co-accused Hanuman Prasad; however, the other two persons named in the complaint, viz. Pravajan Lal and Mahendra Kumar were not found involved in the crime and, therefore, no Challan was filed against these two persons.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is an admitted case of the complainant that on 13.10.1994, she was residing separately alongwith her husband co-accused Hanuman Prasad. Both are teachers and had been serving in the Government Primary School, situate in Chak 1-Z, Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar w.e.f. 4.7.1994. The petitioners are residents of Ward No.8, Oswal Mohalla, Nohar, district Hanumangarh. The residential place of the petitioners is far away from the place of posting of the complainant where the complainant and her husband co-accused Hanuman Prasad were living separately. It was further contended that the complainant was subsequently transferred to Government Primary School, 51-PBN, Panchayat Samiti, Anoopgarh and this place is also situated at far distance from Nohar where the petitioners are residing. Thus, according to the learned counsel, from 4.7.1994 onwards, there had been no occasion for the petitioners to have lived with the complainant or having visited the complainant's residence where she was/is serving as a teacher in Government school. Therefore, from 4.7.1994 onwards, there had not been any occasion for the petitioners to harass the complainant. According to the learned counsel, if at all any harassment was met to the complainant, it might be by her husband co-accused Hanuman Prasad, who is not a petitioner herein.;