PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) BOTH the Cr. Revision No. 256 of 2007 and Cr. Revision No. 410 of 2007 arise out of the same case i.e. P.C.R. Case No. 404 of 2005 and both the orders have been passed by S.D.J.M., Dumka, whereby the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka refused the petition of the petitioner, Sunita Jha for discharge by his order dated 9.3.2007 and also the petition for discharge filed by petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit on the same day, for which Cr. Revision No. 256 of 2007 has been filed. Since both the revisions arise out of the same impugned judgment, hence they were heard together.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sunita Jha that she was not a member of the family of complainant, Smt. Asha Rani Pal's in -law and as such no case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against her. On behalf of the petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the evidence of the complainant herself in Court the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is bad in law and fit to be set aside and hence the order refusing to discharge him is also bad and fit to be aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State as also learned Counsel for the complainant, Asha Rani Pal has submitted that although the petitioner, Sunita Jha she was not a member of the family of her husband, but when she came with her husband and started living in her husband's house they tortured her while living there as wife and husband. In that view of the matter, she became member of the family of the husband of the complainant and as such Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is fully attracted and the learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mukund Chandra Pandit that the complainant has not examined herself as witness in Court, is equally baseless. Since complaint petition filed by the petitioner itself will show as also it will appear from the Lower Court Record that the complainant was examined in Court under Solemn Affirmation and thereafter two witnesses were examined and Court found a prima facie case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against both the petitioners and as such the prayer for discharge of both the accused were rightly rejected by the trial court and it requires no interference by this Court and as such both the revision applications are fit to be dismissed.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties and after considering the evidences available on record, I find that as per Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for making out a charge, it is necessary that the accused should be a member of the family of the husband of the complainant. Section 498A reads as under: Section 498A : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Now in the light of the above definition given under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, it has been seen as to whether the petitioner, Sunita Jha comes within the ambit of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or not?;