Pradeep Kumar Sahu v. Smt. Swati Sahu

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. 625 of 2016 Pradeep Kumar Sahu S/o late Pyarelal Shau, aged about 36 years, R/o Shradha Nagar, Amatalab Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Swati Sahu, wife of Pradeep Sahu, aged about 28 years, resident of C/o R.P. Sahu, Shivaji Nagar, Rudri Road, in front of P.H.E. Office, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri J. K. Gupta , Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 24/06/2016 Challenge in the present Cr.M.P. is to the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Criminal Revision No. 25/2015 affirming the order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the JMFC, Dhamtari in Criminal Complaint No. 268/15 whereby the Magistrate has ordered for registration of an offence under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC against the petitioner.

2.

The sole ground for assailing the said order by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that on an earlier occasion also the respondent no.1 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner which was closed after holding enquiry and finding it to be false by the Police Authorities. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed a complainant case before the JMFC, Dhamtari which vide order dated 04.04.2015 without considering the police report, in a mechanical manner,

registered a case against the petitioner under Section 498-A and 323 of IPC. Against the said order dated 04.04.2015, the petitioner filed a revison petition before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.04.2016. Thus, counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 3.

However, on perusal of the record would show that the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and made an application in this regard before the Magistrate making categorical statement against the petitioner for harassment and cruelty on account of demand of dowry. There was also a specific allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted the complainant and for this reason, the offence under Sections 498 A and 323 IPC was ordered to be registered. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Magistrate could not have refused in registering a complaint when there is a specific allegation made by the complainant which is also supported by the statement of other witnesses along with the complainant's statement.

4.

Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error on facts as well as on law in registering a case under Section 498-A and 323 of IPC nor has the Revisional Court committed any error in rejecting the same as the order under challenge was purely procedural in accordance to law which has been adopted by the Court below. 5.

Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. being devoid of merit deserves to be and is dismissed.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Bhola