Order

Judgment Reserved on : 17/02/2025 Judgment Pronounced on : 18/03/2025

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by learned ADJ No. 2, District Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 6/22 (CIS No. 20/22) whereby the Revision Petition of the private respondents was allowed and order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned CJM Sriganganagar whereby CJM has taken cognizance and framed charges against the private respondents has been quashed.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner, father of Smt. Simrat Kaur, lodged an FIR bearing No. 279/19 at the concerned police station, alleging that his daughter’s marriage was solemnized on 15.11.2015 in Sriganganagar with Jaideep Singh, who was residing in Singapore at that time. After the marriage, Jaideep Singh, along with his father Baltej Singh and mother Sharanjeet Kaur, allegedly started demanding dowry and subjected Simrat Kaur to cruelty both in India and Australia. On the basis of petitioner’s complaint, an FIR was registered at Mahila Police Station, Sriganganagar, under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, and 108 of the IPC. Upon investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sriganganagar, took cognizance of the offenses and framed charges against the accused vide order dated 20.07.2021. Being aggrieved by this order, the private respondents filed a revision petition before the Additional District Judge (ADJ) No. 2, Sriganganagar and vide order dated 14.07.2023, the learned ADJ quashed the CJM’s order dated 20.07.2021. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned ADJ, filed the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned revisional court erred in allowing the revision petition of the private respondents on the ground that the order dated 20.07.2021, passed by the learned CJM, Sriganganagar, was a non-speaking order and lacked detailed reasoning. He further argued that as per the provisions of Section 228 of CrPC, there is no statutory requirement for a cognizance or charge-framing order to be a detailed or reasoned one. The learned CJM had taken cognizance and framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC after hearing the accused and considering the material available on record. Further, it is contended that the revisional court wrongly relied upon the judgments of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and K. Subbarao vs. State of Telangana & Anr. The revisional court’s order is perverse, overlooks material evidence, and is legally unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 deserves to be quashed and set aside. He placed reliance on two judgments as mentioned below:-

a. Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2001 (9) SCC 631].

b. K. Subbarao v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2018)

14 SCC 452.

4. Learned public prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel of the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the Final report and orders dated 20.07.2021 and 14.07.2023 impugned alongwith other material made available to this Court.

6. After perusing the record and pondering upon the submissions and materials made available to the Court, it is evident that the order passed by the revisional Court is a well- reasoned order. This Court carefully examined the order of the learned CJM and found it to be a non-speaking order, lacking detailed reasoning for taking cognizance and framing charges. A judicial order must reflect the proper application of mind, and the absence of detailed reasoning justified the revisional Court’s interference. It is also noted that the revisional Court rightly relied on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in P