Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.2014 passed by Miss R.A. Kujur, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, whereby prima facie offence under Ss. 498 -A, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been found against the accused persons, including the petitioner. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant and he has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him in the said case.
(2.) The complaint petition has been brought on record, which shows that the complainant opposite party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint petition that after the marriage, she was brought to her matrimonial home at Jamshedpur and the accused persons started subjecting her to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry in various ways. She was also taken to Saharsa where her husband is employed and there also, she was subjected to cruelty and torture. It is stated in the complaint petition that upon being subjected to cruelty and torture at Saharsa, she was turned out by her husband and she came back to her in -law's place at Jamshedpur. On 28.12.2013 she was driven out of her in -law's place from Jamshedpur also, and she reached her parents' place at Bokaro on 29.12.2013 at about 8.00 A.M., where, again the brother -in -law of the complainant threatened the complainant on phone. It is also alleged that all the accused persons also came to Bokaro at her parents' place on 29.12.2013 at about 1.00 P.M., and they again abused and assaulted the complainant and her family members for the demand of dowry. With these allegations, the complaint case was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 20 of 2014. It appears from the impugned order that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and some enquiry witnesses were also examined, on the basis of which, prima facie offence under Ss. 498A, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was found against the accused persons by the impugned order dated 8.5.2014.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and no part of the occurrence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Bokaro. It is submitted that only in order to create the jurisdiction, it has been falsely stated in the complaint petition that the complainant reached her parents' place on 29.12.2013 at about 8 O'clock in the morning and thereafter at about 1.00 P.M., all the accused persons went there and assaulted and abused her and her family members. In this context, learned counsel has submitted that on 28.12.2013, the complainant was with the petitioner at Saharsa and both of them had boarded the train for coming to Jamshedpur, which actually left the Mansi Railway Station after 12.00 hours in the night of 29.12.2013 and in that view of the matter, it has been falsely stated in the complaint petition that on 28.12.2013, she was at her in -law's place, from where she was turned out. In this connection, learned counsel has brought on record the information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the South Eastern Railway. The application before the Information Officer of the Southern Railway Station, Chakradharpur, was given, seeking information whether on 28.12.2013 by Train No. 28182 Katihar Tata Link Express, the petitioner Anil Kumar along with his wife Smt. Kumkum Kumari had travelled, and accordingly, the information regarding the journey was sought. In reply thereto, the required in formation was furnished along with the copy of the working reservation chart showing the passengers, who had travelled in the train on that date, and it was also informed that Anil Kumar (i.e., this petitioner) and Smt. Kumkum Kumari (i.e., the complainant) had travelled in Train No. 28182 Katihar Tata Link Express from Mansi to Tatanagar in Coach No. S -8, birth Nos. 58 and 60. The working reservation chart has also been brought on record, confirming that the petitioner and complainant had travelled on that date. An information furnished by the Station Supdt., Mansi Jn., has also been brought on record to show that on 28.12.2013 the said train was running late and had left the Mansi Railway Station after 12.00 hours in the night on 29.12.2013. Learned counsel has submitted that these are the documents furnished by the Public Information Officer and accordingly, these documents are unimpeachable documents 3 to show that the petitioner and the complainant were on train in night of 29.12.2013 coming to Tatanagar from Mansi, and as such, it is false statement in the complaint petition that on 28.12.2013, the complainant was turned out from her in -law's place at Jamshedpur and on 29.12.2013, she reached Bokaro where the accused persons also came and assaulted and abused her and her family members. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that these documents being unimpeachable documents, can be taken into consideration even at this stage. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Rukmini Narvekar v/s. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors., reported in : 2009 (1) JCR 139 (SC), wherein, it has been held that though ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charge, but there may some very rare and exceptional cases where some defense material would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous and in such very rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sinha v/s. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in : (2013) 3 Est. Cr.C. 470, wherein, it has been held that unimpeachable documents can be taken into consideration even at this stage to come to the conclusion about the bona fides of accusations against the accused persons. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the allegation made in the complaint petition are absolutely false.;