- (1.) HEARD learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 05/10/2010, passed in Complaint Case No. 340/2007, by which order the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, discharged the accused persons/opposite parties from the accusation.
(2.) IT appears that a complaint was filed alleging therein that the opposite parties subjected the complainant to torture on account of non fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Upon it a case was registered as Complaint Case No. 340/2007, in which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the opposite parties. There upon, the summons were issued. On receiving summons, the opposite parties failed to appear before the Court below and then the nonbailable warrant was issued. Pursuant to that, the opposite parties surrendered before the Court below and were granted bail. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 10/02/2010 for evidence before charge, but the complainant/petitioner did not produce any witness. Thereafter, the case was adjourned time to time and at least six opportunities were given to the complainant/petitioner to produce witnesses before charge. When the complainant failed to produce a single witness before charge, the Court passed an order discharging the opposite parties. That order is under challenge. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that apart from the complaint case, one proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, were going on in between the parties. In a proceeding under the matrimonial suit, the opposite parties had been directed to pay the amount of maintenance and also the cost of litigation but that amount was not paid and, therefore, the complainant was handicapped in producing any witness before the Court.
(3.) THERE would have been some substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, if the witnesses cited in the complaint, would have been other than the family members. More so there does not seems to be any justification on the part of the complainant not to produce witnesses before charge not only on one date but for six dates and only when the complainant failed to adduce evidence before charge in all those dates, order was recorded whereby the accused persons/opposite parties were discharged.;