The court upheld the principle of taking cognizance based on the complainant's allegations and relevant legal provisions, despite the initial police investigation not implicating the petitioners.

1. This Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner / complainant and Mr. Saurabh Verma (husband of complainant) entered into wedlock on 20.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals. After some time of marriage, the complainant started compelling her husband to live separately and to leave his parents and started raising several other demands because of which small quarrels / disputes started in their married life. After attaining pregnancy, the complainant went to her father’s home in the month of October-November 2015 and on 5.12.2015, when her husband along with his uncle went to take her back for her checkup as she was pregnant, her father and brother started abusing the husband. An FIR no. 282/15 under section 498A & 406 IPC came to be filed against Mr. Saurabh Verma (husband) and the accused-petitioners with the police station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (North), alleging therein that Mr. Saurabh Verma and complainant got married on 20.02.2015 and after one month of marriage the accused started harassing the complainant mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. The police after thorough investigation submitted challan against Saurav Verma but not implicated the petitioners as an accused. The complainant filed an application (Protest Petition) under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against other accused also. The learned trial court passed an order dated 02.07.2016 by which cognizance has been taken against all the accused named in the FIR no. 282/2015 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Against the order dated 2.07.2016, the petitioners preferred a Criminal Revision Petition which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide its order dated 23.09.2016.Petitioners have preferred this petition against both the orders passed by the courts below.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that trial court has erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners as they have been falsely implicated in the matter. He has drawn attention of the court on the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C in which accused petitioners do not come under the purview of the accused. He has placed reliance on the judgment reported in Geeta Mehrotra and another vs State of Uttarpradesh reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741. He has further contended that provisions of natural justice have not been followed hence the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court deserve to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant have contended that learned trial court has taken cognizance on the ground that complainant specifically alleged in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C that the petitioners and other accused persons made a demand of dowry and tortured her mentally and physically. They have placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. vs State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 2013 SC 3018 and Moti Lal Songara vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu and Anr. AIR 2013 SC 2078 hence the order passed by the revisional court be upheld and the misc. petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed before the court.

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this court is of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by the courts below hence the Misc. Petition is dismissed.

7. However, the petitioners are granted liberty to raise all his objections which have been raised by way of instant petition before the court below at the appropriate stage of trial.