Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Godda in Sunil Kumar Mishra, Anil Kumar Mishra, ... vs The State Of Jharkhand And Pawas Mishra on 14 July, 2006Matching Fragments
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant/opposite parry No. 2, namely, Pawas Mishra had filed a complaint case being P.C.R. No. 65 of 2000 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, against the petitioners and one Suresh Chandra Mishra, father-in-law of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 narrating that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 on 22.5.1998 as per Hindu Rites. Thereafter she was subjected to torture by the petitioners in relation to demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in cash as well as Colour T.V. and a Motor Cycle. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 was driven out on 26.1.1999 after retaining her valuable ornaments and clothes and was asked not to return unless their demands were fulfilled. The complaint petition was sent to the local police station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which Godda (T) P.S. case No. 118 of 2000 was registered on 14.4.2000 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and father-in-law of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, cognizance was taken.
12. Finally it has been submitted that when the marital relationship between the petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 has been severed after the decree of divorce by the competent court of civil jurisdiction, the opposite party No. 2 now ceases to be the wife of the petitioner No. 1 and therefore, the proceeding in the present case becomes non-est in the eye of law.
14. The learned Counsel urged that when the petition for discharge of the petitioners was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda on 18.10.2004 a criminal revision was preferred before this Court which was heard and by order dated 30.11.2005 the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda was directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass a reasoned order. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, by impugned order dated 8.2.2006 again rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioners without considering the materials on record and without apply his judicial mind and the finding recorded by the competent court of Civil Jurisdiction in the Judgment passed in Matrimonial suit No. 8 of 2000 was completely ignored.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the impugned order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in P.C.R. case No. 65 of 2000 I find that the direction made by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 1028 of 2004 on 30.11.2005 was taken into considered of the material fact by the court below while appreciating the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners, once again.
17. It is relevant to mention that the complaint case No. 65 of 2000 of complainant/opposite party No. 2 was sent under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for lodging a police case and accordingly, Godda (T) P.S. case No. 118 of 2000 was lodged for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as against as many as five accused persons including the petitioners. Police after investigation submitted charge sheet under the said offence and these were the only materials before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda including the case diary of Godda (T) P.S. case No. 118 of 2000 on behalf of the prosecution to consider the petition for discharge of the petitioners once again pursuant to the direction made by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 1028 of 2004 on 30.11.2005. The petitioners have presented their defence case on the basis of certain documents as evidence including the judgment passed in Matrimonial suit No. 8 of 2000 by the court of 5th Additional District Judge, Alipur whereby the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 27.3.2002.
23. In the result, the order impugned dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in T.R. Case No. 489 of 2005 arising out Godda (T) P.S. case No. 118 of 2000 is set aside. Let charge be framed against the petitioner No. 1 Sunil Kumar Mishra for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with the direction to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
24. This Cr. Revision petition is allowed in part and is disposed of with the above observation.