The process issued by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (City Judge), Jammu, on respondent s Complaint under Section 406 RPC is questioned by the petitioners projecting, inter alia, the abuse of the process of law by the respondent to pressurize and harass the petitioner so that he was disabled to prosecute his Petition filed in the Matrimonial Court to seek dissolution of Marriage.

The facts giving rise to the case may be stated thus:-

The Respondent-Sonika Gupta was married to the Ist petitioner-Ramesh Chander Gupta on January 30, 2005 at Janipur, Jammu. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the brothers-inlaw and the 5th petitioner, the mother-in-law of the respondent. The 6th petitioner is the near relation of petitioner Nos. 1 to 5.

The respondent filed a Complaint saying that the petitioners had dishonestly misappropriated her Istridhan and were still misappropriating her property, i.e., gifts given to her at the time of the marriage, which after its transfer to them, by her, were kept in the custody of petitioner No.6.

The process was issued against the petitioners on the basis of the Statements of the respondent and her mother-Kamla Devi.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Complaint as also the Statements recorded in support thereof.

In their sworn testimony, the Complainant and her mother say that all the petitioners were misusing her Istridhan and had dishonestly committed breach of trust by misusing the Complainant s property which they had no right so to do.

The Statements of the Complainant and her witness are, however, significantly silent about any such act or omission of the petitioners, either individually, or collectively, that was construed by the Complainant as misuse of Istridhan and breach of trust. No such facts on the basis whereof even inference of misappropriation be drawn are indicated either in the Complaint or in the Statements. The manner of use of property which is stated to have been misappropriated, is not indicated in the Statements.

The question that therefore falls for consideration is whether process was justified against the petitioners, on the basis of such statements which reiterated only the phraseology employed in the charging Section, and nothing beyond, or such facts or circumstances demonstrating attraction of the provisions of the charging penal Section were required to be spelt out by the Complainant and her witness in their statements recorded on oath?

In terms of the provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C, before considering issuance of process, the Magistrate is required to satisfy himself, on the basis of the statements of the Complainant and his/her witness(es), if any, recorded on oath, that there existed sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The satisfaction contemplated by the Section may be gathered from such facts or circumstances as spelt out by the Complainant or his/her witness(es) in their evidence which may prima facie indicate commission of offence(s). Mere reiteration of the phraseology of the Penal Section in the Statements may not furnish requisite material needed for recording satisfaction contemplated by law for issuance of process by the Magistrate. This is so because issuance of process has the effect of taking away the freedom affecting the Right to personal liberty of the person proceeded against, in that, his freedom thereafter shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Court regulating his attendance during trial in the Complaint. It is no doubt true that Right to personal liberty may not be absolute and was subject to its curtailment by Judicial Process or under any law for the time being in force; but before doing that reasonable grounds must exist warranting depriving one of his/her liberty. Taking away the liberty of any person on mere ipsi dixit of the Complainant or his/her witness(es) in saying that the accused had committed offence(s) punishable under an indicated Section, may not be permissible. The existence of such facts or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document