M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) NOTICE was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
(2.) SINCE the persons arrayed as accused in the case were not summoned by the learned Magistrate as he had dismissed petitioner's complaint U/s. 203 Cr.P.C. it was not considered necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The relevant facts are that Kamlesh, the daughter of Ramesh Chand, complainant-petitioner, was married to Ram Babu, respondent No. 5, R/o. Faridabad, Haryana, on 12.7.89. It was alleged that her husband and other in-laws harassed and treated Smt. Kamlesh with cruelty for demand of dowry and they turned her out in the year 1991 after giving her a beating. Kamlesh was got examined on 6.10.91 by the complainant-petitioner at Dholpur. It was further alleged that Kamlesh gave birth to a child also at Dholpur. Based on these facts the petitioner had filed a complaint in the court of the Magistrate at Dholpur. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed such complaint u/S. 203 Cr.P.C. and the dismissal order was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur in revision.
(3.) MR . K.N. Srimal, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy and Ors. (1) for the proposition that the bar, created U/s. 468 Cr.P.C., does not stand attracted to the offence U/s. 494 and/or 498-A maxim vigilante bus was inapplicable to offences relating to cruelty on women in matrimonial cases. The learned counsel further submitted that since the consequences of the harassment and cruel behaviour, exhibited by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against Smt. Kamlesh, had taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Dholpur, he was competent to take cognizance of such offences.;