SUMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Whether the appellant, who was named as one of the accused in the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, Smt. Anita alleging harassment and torture at the hands of her husband and in-laws but qua whom the police filed negative final report, could be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and whether Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Judicial Magistrate') was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') are the questions which arise for determination in this appeal filed against order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1366 of 2007.

(3.) The appellant's brother Pramod Kumar was married to respondent No. 2 on 7.12.2000 at Sri Ganganagar. After one year and four months, respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate alleging that due to her failure to bring sufficient dowry and meet the demand of her in-laws, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and harassment in different ways. The learned Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Thereupon, FIR No. 150/2002 was registered at police station Jawahar Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar for offences under Sections 406, 498A, 354, 377 and 323 IPC. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of respondent No. 2 - Smt. Anita, her father Shri Jaipal, mother Smt. Savitri Devi and four other persons, namely, Shri Premnath, Shri Hanuman Chautala, Shri Brijlal, Shri Kripal Singh and filed charge sheet on 4.1.2003 against Pramod Kumar - husband of respondent No. 2, Rukmani Devi - mother-in-law and Ram Kumar @ Rampratap - father-in-law. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the Investigating Officer opined that she was innocent because she was living at Bikaner with her husband and had not caused harassment to respondent No. 2 or made demand for dowry. By an order dated 5.8.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against three accused and adjourned the case for prosecution evidence. On 16.6.2006, the statement of respondent No. 2 was recorded. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for issuing process against the appellant. The learned Judicial Magistrate adverted to the contents of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2, the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also the statement made by respondent No. 2 before the court and held that prima facie case was made out for taking cognizance against the appellant for offence under Section 498A IPC. He accordingly passed order dated 2.9.2006 and directed that the appellant be summoned through bailable warrant. The revision filed by the appellant against that order was allowed by Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar who held that in view of the bar contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate was not entitled to take cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the appellant under Section 498A IPC. The revisional order was set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 25 of 2007 and the matter was remitted to the revisional court for fresh decision in the light of the observations made by him on the issue of limitation in the context of Section 473 Cr.P.C.