- (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the then learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Lalpur P.S. Case No.179 of 2007 (G.R. No.4873 of 2007) whereby and whereunder, prayer for discharge of these petitioners has been rejected. Case of the prosecution is that the informant-Ranjeeta Sahay Sarkar had married to the petitioner No.3. She was in love with him prior to the marriage. Marriage when got settled, the accused person put forth the demand of dowry. The father of the informant any how fulfilled the demand of the dowry. After the marriage, when she came to her in-laws place, father and mother-in- law, started putting the demand. Upon which, it was stated by the informant that it is not possible for her father to meet the demand as he is in debt. Thereafter, mother-in-law sent her son (husband of the informant) to somewhere else on the pretext of doing business. Meanwhile, she was being subjected to torture. It has also been stated that she was having some kind of gynecological disorder, which husband was knowing from before, she was treated for that disorder at Vellore and Kolkata. In course of time, all the accused persons i.e. father and mother of the husband forcibly took away the Jewelery of the informant and sold it out. Not only that the accused persons forced the father of the informant to transfer his land in their favour. When the land was not transferred, the accused persons, started subjecting her to cruelty more severely and ultimately she was driven out of the house. It has also been stated that she came to know that her husband has filed a suit for divorce before the court below. On such allegation, the case was registered as Lalpur P.S. Case No.179 of 2007 (G.R. No.4873 of 2007). On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Upon which, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against these petitioners.
(2.) BEING aggrieved with the order taking cognizance, these petitioners preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being Cr.M.P. No.1422 of 2008. Subsequently, an application for discharge filed by these petitioners was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2010, which has been challenged in Cr. Revision No.331 of 2010. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for these petitioners submits that whatever allegations have been levelled against these petitioners, all those allegations are false and as a matter of fact, which has also been admitted by the informant in her first information report that she was having some kind of Gynecological disorder for which she was treated and during treatment, it could be known to the husband that her ovary has been removed earlier prior to the marriage with the petitioner no.3 and as soon as, the husband came to know about this fact, which had been concealed by the informant to him, he filed a divorce case and when the husband came to know that her husband has lodged the divorce case, this case was lodged with all false allegations and as such, it can easily be said to be a case of malicious prosecution and, therefore, the instant application is fit to be dismissed. It was further submitted that none of the independent witnesses in course of the investigation have supported the case of the informant and even the mother of the informant has not stated in specific term about the demand being made by these petitioners or about subjection to cruelty and in such event, these petitioners were deserved to be discharged by the court below, but the court below, without taking into account all these facts, in the right perspective, dismissed the application for discharge, which is quite illegal and hence, it is fit to be set aside. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 submits that the allegations are there in the first information report, which go to show that the informant was subjected to cruelty on account of non- fulfillment of the demand of the dowry and her version gets supported from the statement made by other witnesses including independent witnesses and that it is the specific case of the informant that her husband was quite aware of the disease, which she was suffering from and, therefore, it is never the case that the informant had concealed something from her husband and that it is true, that this case was lodged after the informant came to know about the filing of the divorce petition, but on account of that, this criminal proceeding cannot be set aside by holding it a case of malicious prosecution.
(3.) MR . Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of his submission, has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar and ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 346. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it dos appear that the allegations are there in the first report against these petitioners-father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband that they subjected the informant to cruelty, on account of non fulfillment of the demand of the dowry. Those allegations seem to have been supported by the witnesses, some of them seem to be the independent witnesses. In such situation, proceeding never warrants to be set aside even if the plea of these petitioners is accepted to be that this case had been filed by the informant, after knowing the fact that the husband has filed a divorce suit, as cause of action for lodging a divorce case is something different from the cause of action accrued for lodging the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and that the police after investigation, had submitted charge sheet, after finding the allegation to be true. In such situation, plea taken by these petitioners of case being malafide, is not acceptable.;