- (1.) The petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 01.05.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1694 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") for their discharge, has been rejected.
(2.) The prosecution story, as it appears from the complaint filed by Md. Ismail Ansari, the present opposite party no.2, is that the marriage of his daughter Jeba Parween was solemnized with Md. Sahid on 05.04.2009 and in the said marriage, he had given sufficient dowry by way of cash and gold ornaments besides other articles to the in-laws and husband of his daughter, whereafter, his daughter went to her matrimonial home and enjoyed her married life till 12.04.2009. His daughter and his son-in-law Md. Sahid came to his house and stayed till 14.04.2009. They went back to their home but after couple of days, the accused persons started ill-behaving and demanded one motorcycle and cash Rs. 2,00,000/- for starting business as sufficient dowry was not given during the marriage and threatened that if the demands are not fulfilled, Sahid Ansari will give "Talak" to her. It is also alleged that his daughter narrated all the tortures meted out to her to her brother and the fathercomplainant but due to non-fulfillment of their demand, Jeba Praveen was ousted from her matrimonial home on 20.05.2009. Because of the threatening of "Talak" and physical and mental torture, Jeba Parween lost her mental balance for which she was treated by a doctor and in order to get rid of Jeba Parween, at the instance of the accused persons, her husband had filed a divorce suit in the Family Court, Dhanbad on false grounds.
(3.) It appears from the record that after examination of the complainant and witnesses, the court below took cognizance of the offence whereafter a discharge petition was filed on behalf of the present petitioners under Section 245 of the Code and the court below after hearing the parties by order impugned dated 01.05.2014, rejected the prayer. Hence, this revision.;