The court clarified that sufficient evidence must be scrutinized to sustain allegations under Section 498-A IPC, not merely relying on investigative findings.

1. In this criminal application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), the applicants, who are accused nos.1 and 3, respectively, in Regular Criminal Case No. 268/2006, have prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Revision No. 59/2013 and also the order dated 23.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Gondia. By the order dated 23.04.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Gondia, had rejected the ‘B’ summary report filed by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 272/2002 and took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused nos.1, 3 to 5. The applicants/accused challenged the said order by filing revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gondia. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 21.11.2016 dismissed the revision.

2. Before narrating the facts, it is necessary to state that initially the ‘B’ summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by his order dated 09.08.2006. The revision application filed in the Sessions Court at Gondia against the said order was dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia on 27.01.2009. The applicants had filed criminal application bearing No. 786/2009 before this Court. This Court, by the judgment and order dated 23.10.2012 set aside the order passed in revision by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27.01.2009 as well as the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia dated 09.08.2006. This Court, for the reasons recorded in the order, directed the learned JMFC, Gondia to reconsider the summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a reasoned order by taking into consideration all the facts placed on record. Learned JMFC, Gondia accordingly granted opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed the order as stated above. The said order came to be confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia as stated above.

3. Accused no.2 – Ghanshyamdas died during pendency of the proceeding. The prosecution has, therefore, abated against him. Applicant no.1 is the accused no.1 and husband of the informant.

Applicant no.2 is the accused no.3 and mother-in-law of the informant. Accused nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the informant/non-applicant no.2. Accused nos.4 and 5 have not challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia.

4. Non-applicant no.2 on 08.10.2002 lodged a report at Gondia police station against the accused persons. Applicant no.1/ accused no.1 and non-applicant no.2 got married on 11.02.2001. It is stated in the first information report that after marriage, non-applicant no.2 went to stay at the house of the accused. For initial few months, she was treated well, however after some time, the accused persons started making demand of dowry. It is stated that the accused would tell the informant that sufficient dowry and respect was not paid to them in the marriage. The Gifts and presents received in the marriage were not to their satisfaction. They, therefore, demanded gold ornaments, clothes and cash repeatedly. Brother of the informant met some demands of the accused. He gave one gold ring, chain, mangalsutra, paipatti etc. to the accused after marriage. The accused were not satisfied with this. They extended physical and mental t