- (1.) THE petitioners have filed this revision application against the order dated 18.8.2003, passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 446 of 1999, whereby, the petition, filed by these petitioners on 31.1.2003, under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been rejected.
(2.) WITHIN a short compass, the case of opposite party No. 2 Smt. Sheela Pandey is that she was married with petitioner No. 1 on 21.4.1995. Petitioner No. 2 is her father -in -law. At the time of marriage, her father gifted golden ornaments valued at Rs. 40,000/ - silver and steel utensils valued at Rs. 15,000/ - and clothes valued at Rs. 10,000/ -. After marriage, she lived hardly four months at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she was being tortured for demand of scooter and cash of Rs. 25,000/ -. She had informed the atrocities meted to her by her in -laws and husband, to her parents by writing a letter, when she was tortured and even not being treated while she fell ill rather she was forced to live in her parent 'shouse where she was living for about three and half years. A panchayati was also held but the matter could not be settled and hence the complainant case. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and after enquiry cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code. Before charge, the complainant examined four witnesses. The learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate heard both the parties on the point of framing charge and on the petition, filed on behalf of the petitioners/ accused to discharge them. He also perused the records and found that there is sufficient evidence available on record to frame charge under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and as such, rejected the petition filed on 31.1.2003, under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners have came up hear, challenging the said order on the ground that the witnesses, examined by the complainant are closely related to each other. PW 1 Sunil Kumar pandey has admitted that the husband of the complainant (petitioner No. 1) had filed a Divorce Suit at Deoghar. PW 2 Manoranjan Mallick has shown the letter regarding demand of Rs. 25,000/ - and holding panchayati. PW 3 Nalinakhya Pandey is the father of the complainant. PW 4 is the complainant herself, who has written the letter to her father (Ext. 1). She has admitted that Divorce Suit No. 26 of 1998, filed in the Court at Deoghar, was decreed. After receiving notice regarding institution of divorce suit against her by her husband, has filed the complaint] case after concoction. Since April, 1995 she had not gone to her sasural and hence the question of torture does not arise.;