2004 Supreme(Jhk) 539
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : H. S. PRASAD
SONALI MEHTA ALIAS SONALI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND - Respondents
Cr. M. P 56 Of 2003
Decided On : 05/14/2004
B.V.Verma, Shailesh, VANDANA SINGH
Accused persons have no locus standi at the inquiry stage and notice to accused for further inquiry is not required.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Code of Criminal Procedure - 202 Cr. P. C. - 203 Cr. P. C. - 399 IPC - 401 IPC - 323 IPC - 452 IPC - 418 IPC - 506 IPC - 498a IPC - 323 IPC - 504 IPC - 342a IPC - 379 IPC - 406 IPC - 342 IPC - 3 Dowry Prohibition Act - 4 Dowry Prohibition Act
Fact of the Case:
The application was filed to quash an order taking cognizance in a case where the complainant alleged kidnapping, confinement, forced marriage, assault, and demand of dowry against the petitioners. The lower court initially found no prima facie case but later, after a revision, took cognizance of the offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that accused persons have no locus standi at the inquiry stage and that notice to accused for further inquiry is not required. The court also allowed the petitioners to raise their points at the trial stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the order taking cognizance, the rights of accused persons at the inquiry stage, and the validity of the revision process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that accused persons have no right to appear at the inquiry stage and that notice to accused for further inquiry is not required. The court also emphasized that the points raised by the petitioners can be addressed at the trial stage.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed with the observation that accused persons have no right to appear at the inquiry stage and that the points raised by the petitioners can be addressed at the trial stage.
( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 6-1-2003 passed in C. P. Case No. 105 of 2002 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate. Bokaro took cognizance in the case.
( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to the filing of this application are that O. P. No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) filed a complaint case on 23-3-2002 against the petitioners stating therein that Sonali Mehta (petitioner No. 1) was married to the elder brother of complainant on 6-5-2001 and husband of Sonali Mehta died on 1-11-2001; after death of elder brother of complainant, accused persons wanted that complainant should marry Sonali Mehta. On 24-2-2002 at about 12 noon complainant who is working as Computer Engineer at Sector IV in s. T. G. City Centre, Bokaro had gone to his work place where petitioners, namely, mohan Mahto alias Mohan Prasad, Pramod kumar alias Pramod Prasad, Binod Kumar alias Binod Prasad, Makeshwar Prasad and mohan Prasad Rawat alias Mohan Rawat kidnapped complainant from Sector-IV and he was forced to sit in a car on the point of revolver. It is further alleged that on 25-5-2002 the complainant was wrongfully and secretly kept in confinement in a lonely place and father of the complainant also reached barh on 25-5-2002 and he met the petitioners and enquired about his son but he was also kept in a lonely place secretly and wrongfully. On 26-2-2002 signature of the complainant was obtained without showing contents of the papers and complainant was forced to marry Sonali Mehta. Complainant thereafter fled away from the custody of the petitioners. On 17-3 2002 the petitioners as accused of this complaint case came to his house and forcibly pressed the complainant to keep Sonali Mehta with him and when he protested, he was assaulted and demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made from him. Sonali mehta was also a part of the incident and she took away the attache containing jewellery, clothes amounting to Rs. 25,000/-from house of the complainant. The learned judicial Magistrate, Bokaro held enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and after perusing the entire evidence on record, vide order dated 15-6-2002 did not find any sufficient material to hold a prima facie case as against the petitioners but only found material against Mohan Prasad Rawat alias Mohan rawat (petitioner No. 6) under Sections 418 and 506, IPC. The complainant thereafter preferred a Criminal Revision being 72 of 2002 before the Court of Sessions Judge, bokaro and the learned Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bokaro by his order dated 11-10-2002 set aside the order dated 15-6-2002 and directed the learned Court below to hold further inquiry in the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereafter, in pursuance of the direction of the Additional sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, bokaro, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro held further inquiry into the C. P. Case No. 105 of 2002 and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and took cognizance of the offence as alleged.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that petitioner No. 1 sonali Mehta after the death of her husband was driven out from her sasural, but due to mediation of well wisher she was again brought to her in-laws house on 31-1-2002 and she stayed there till 12-2-2002 and when she filed an affidavit for issuance of death certificate of her husband Anil Kumar (Annexure-4), she was assaulted by her sasural people the same day and she was pushed out of the house at 8. 00 PM. It was further pointed out that she somehow or the other reached Barh on 18-2-2002 and filed a complaint case being complaint case No. 54 of 2002 before the Court of A. C. J. M. , bokaro under Sections 498a/323/504/ 342a, IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her in-laws and other family members (Annexure-5 ). On 26-2-2002 a joint compromise pet