The court upheld the Revisional Court's discharge of accused under IPC Section 498-A, emphasizing the necessity of a judicial assessment in framing charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) :

Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 8.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.74 of 2015 filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 8, whereby, the criminal revision has been allowed and thereby quashed the order dated 12.03.2015 passed in connection with G.R. No.3695 of 2012 (Mango P.S. Case No.612 of 2012) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 8 under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

3. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is the informant and private opposite parties are in-laws of the petitioner. He further submits that private opposite parties have filed discharge petition, which was rejected by the learned Court and the learned Revisional Court has quashed the order passed by the learned Court and remanded the matter to the learned Court and the learned Court has again dismissed the discharge petition filed by private opposite parties under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which was again challenged by the private opposite parties in criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.74 of 2015 and the learned Revisional Court has quashed the order passed by the learned Court. He further submits that the Court is required to see the evidence collected during course of investigation and if the material on the case record is sufficient for framing of charge, the learned Court should proceed against the accused persons from framing of charge against them.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 8 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the order.

5. In view of the above, it appears that by passing a fresh order, the learned Revisional Court has exercised its power of discharging the accused persons. Further, opposite party nos. 2 to 8 are in-laws of the petitioner and only being the in-laws, they have been implicated in the case. The case is arising out of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Revisional Court vide order dated 01.12.2015 has found that the order passed by the learned Court was improper and since the matter was remanded back by the learned Revisional Court and in absence of any judicial mind and in a mechanical way, the discharge petition has been rejected by the learned Court and considering these aspects of the matter, the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been discharged by the learned Revisional Court. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner is facing trial.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.