According to the facts of this case, the wife was living with her husband and In-laws in her matrimonial home.
It is stated that an incident took place on 09.12.2016 upon which, the wife filed a complaint petition dated 14.12.2016 under Sections 323, 341, 354, 379, 498A, 504, 506, and 34 of IPC, against the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law.
It is also stated in the complaint petition that on 11.12.2016, the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law came to the house of the wife in Sahibganj, made a dowry demand, and threatened the wife and her family, and the police registered the case against the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law.
The statement of the wife and witnesses were recorded, and after the inquiry, the court found a prima facie case to be made out against the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law, under Sections 323, 379, 504/34 of IPC
The parents-in-law and brother-in-law filed a discharge petition before the trial court, but it was rejected by the court, and the court held that a prima facie case under Sections 323, 379, 504/34 to be made out against the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law.
Later, a revision petition is filed by the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law before the session court, but the order of framing of charge with respect to the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law were not interfered with by the court and was decided to be correct.
Being aggrieved by the order, the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law have filed the present Criminal misc Petition before the high court.
The advocate appearing on behalf of the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law submitted that the present case is a classic example of misuse of the process of the court.
It is further submitted that in order to create jurisdiction within the state of Jharkhand, the allegation has been made in the complaint that on 11.12.2016, the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law came to the house of the wife in Sahibganj, and threatened the wife and her family, and the entire incident took place in Baravani, and the police registered a case against the In-laws.
It is also submitted that material contradictions further falsify the entire complaint case filed by the wife. In the complaint, the date of the incident is stated as 11.12.2016 whereas, in the statement, the wife has not stated anything regarding the incident that took place on 11.12.2016.
Furthermore, it is submitted that all the witnesses have stated that the parents-in-law and brother-in-law came to the native home of the wife, and made a dowry demand which will not make out an offense under Section 323 of IPC.
Therefore, he prayed to quash the order passed by the session court dated 07.10.2021 against, the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law.
On the other hand, the advocate appearing on behalf of the wife opposed the petition filed by the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law, and submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, only a prima facie view of the matter has been taken into consideration, and there is sufficient material and evidence for framing of charge.
Therefore, it is prayed that the decision of the session court is correct, and the petition filed by the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law shall be dismissed.
It is stated by the court that the object of section 245 of CrPC, and other provisions for discharge has been implanted in the code to filter out frivolous, and malicious prosecution of cases of criminal nature, and to see that the accused are not falsely charged.
In the present case, the court stated that on the basis of material collected during the trial, the court does not find that any prima facie case of assault is made out on the date of incidence.
The court also stated that there is a material difference between the allegations made in the complaint petition, and in the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquiry.
The court further stated that the order of the magistrate summoning the accused person must reflect that the magistrate has applied his mind to the facts of the case, and the law applicable thereto.
The court also stated that the magistrate has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint, and the oral and documentary evidence, and that would be sufficient for the person who filed the complaint to bring the charge home to the accused person.
The magistrate has to carefully study the evidence brought on record before the court, and the magistrate may even put questions to the person who filed the complaint, and his witnesses to give answers to find out the truth of the allegations, and then examine if any offense is committed by the accused person or not.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that the instant criminal misc Petition filed by the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law is allowed, and the impugned order against them is set aside.
In this article, the Jharkhand High Court held that on the basis of material collected during the trial, the court does not find that any prima facie case of assault is made out on the date of incidence.
It is also held that there is a material difference between the allegations made in the complaint petition, and in the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquiry.
Therefore, the impugned order against the parents-in-law, and brother-in-law is set aside, and the In-laws are discharged.
Click Here To Download Judgement PDF
Disclaimer :
The above Content/Article/judgement/Video is posted for informational & educational purpose only. Printout/Copy form this website/YouTube channel are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your counsel. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the readers/viewers relying on material/information provided in above Content/Article/judgement/ video. We does not warrant the performance, effectiveness, applicability or accuracy of above content/judgement/video.
