- (1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 6-1-2003 passed in C.P. Case No. 105 of 2002 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate. Bokaro took cognizance in the case.
(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of this application are that O.P. No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) filed a complaint case on 23-3-2002 against the petitioners stating therein that Sonali Mehta (petitioner No. 1) was married to the elder brother of complainant on 6-5-2001 and husband of Sonali Mehta died on 1-11-2001; after death of elder brother of complainant, accused persons wanted that complainant should marry Sonali Mehta. On 24-2-2002 at about 12 noon complainant who is working as Computer Engineer at Sector IV in S.T.G. City Centre, Bokaro had gone to his work place where petitioners, namely, Mohan Mahto alias Mohan Prasad, Pramod Kumar alias Pramod Prasad, Binod Kumar alias Binod Prasad, Makeshwar Prasad and Mohan Prasad Rawat alias Mohan Rawat kidnapped complainant from Sector-IV and he was forced to sit in a car on the point of revolver. It is further alleged that on 25-5-2002 the complainant was wrongfully and secretly kept in confinement in a lonely place and father of the complainant also reached Barh on 25-5-2002 and he met the petitioners and enquired about his son but he was also kept in a lonely place secretly and wrongfully. On 26-2-2002 signature of the complainant was obtained without showing contents of the papers and complainant was forced to marry Sonali Mehta. Complainant thereafter fled away from the custody of the petitioners. On 17-3 2002 the petitioners as accused of this complaint case came to his house and forcibly pressed the complainant to keep Sonali Mehta with him and when he protested, he was assaulted and demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made from him. Sonali Mehta was also a part of the incident and she took away the attache containing jewellery, clothes amounting to Rs. 25,000/- from house of the complainant. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro held enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. and after perusing the entire evidence on record, vide order dated 15-6-2002 did not find any sufficient material to hold a prima facie case as against the petitioners but only found material against Mohan Prasad Rawat alias Mohan Rawat (petitioner No. 6) under Sections 418 and 506, IPC. The complainant thereafter preferred a Criminal Revision being 72 of 2002 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Bokaro and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bokaro by his order dated 11-10-2002 set aside the order dated 15-6-2002 and directed the learned Court below to hold further inquiry in the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereafter, in pursuance of the direction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bokaro, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro held further inquiry into the C.P. Case No. 105 of 2002 and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and took cognizance of the offence as alleged.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that petitioner No. 1 Sonali Mehta after the death of her husband was driven out from her sasural, but due to mediation of well wisher she was again brought to her in-laws house on 31-1-2002 and she stayed there till 12-2-2002 and when she filed an affidavit for issuance of death certificate of her husband Anil Kumar (Annexure-4), she was assaulted by her sasural people the same day and she was pushed out of the house at 8.00 PM. It was further pointed out that she somehow or the other reached Barh on 18-2-2002 and filed a complaint case being complaint case No. 54 of 2002 before the Court of A.C.J.M., Bokaro under Sections 498A/323/504/ 342A, IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her in-laws and other family members (Annexure-5). On 26-2-2002 a joint compromise petition was filed on behalf of both the parties as good feeling has been restored with the mediation of the well wishers and C.P. Case No. 54 of 2002 was withdrawn (Annexures-6 and 6/1). The same day she was married with complainant of the case before the notary, Barh according to Hindu customs and traditions (Arinexures-7 and 7/1). It was further pointed out that complainant brought his wife Sonali Mehta on 27-2-2002 to Bokaro but Sonali Mehta stayed in her sasural amidst torture and cruelty for demand of dowry by his sasural people. Since she was tortured, she wrote a bairang letter on 25-3-2002 at the address of her father (Annexure-8). It was further pointed out that on receipt of the letter of his daughter, father of Sonali Mehta reached Bokaro on 28-2-2002 and during the stay of Sonali Mehta in the house of the complainant, the instant complaint case was filed and after reaching Barh from Bokaro, Sonali Mehta again filed a complaint case before the ACJM, Barh being Complaint Case No. 114(c)/2002 against her husband and his family members under Sections 498A/323/504/379/ 406/342, IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which FIR being FIR No. 98 of 2002 was registered on 3-4-2002 (Annexures-9 and 9/1). It was also submitted that Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bokaro passed order directing the learned Court below to hold further inquiry, in absence of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law as in the absence of the petitioners, no order can be passed in revision to the prejudice of the petitioners.;