Gopalji Baranwal and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

R.K. Singh, J.—By the order dated 11.9.1998 this Court directed the office to summon the lower court record but the same has not been received. Mr. Misra prays that a fresh order should be passed calling for the record from the lower court.

After hearing Mr. Misra on merits on the revision petition this Court does not feel any necessity to call for the lower court record hence the revision petition is heard on merit with the help of the materials on record.

Heard Mr. D.N. Misra counsel for the revisionist and Sri P. Ojha learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. Mr. A.K. Jain representing the State of U.P.. The grounds taken by Mr. Misra to assail the impugned order dated 29th July, 1998 passed by the C.J.M., Ballia in Criminal Case No. 1195 of 1996, Ram Lachan v. Gopal and Ors., under Sections 498A, 323, 326, I.P.C. and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act is that after dismissal of first complaint u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure there is no scope to take cognizance on the basis of second complaint for the same facts.

In his support he has pressed the impugned order and it is disclosed that the first complaint which was presented on 28.2.1996 in the Court, was taken for enquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and after enquiry the first complaint was not pressed by the complainant who thereafter on 2.3.1996 again presented another complaint in which enquiry was conducted under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and the cognizance was taken.

The impugned order itself speaks that the first complaint was not dismissed u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure rather it was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the argument does not appear convincing. If the complaint petition could have got the result on merits of its allegations, Mr. Misra could have been justified in assailing the impugned order but since the first complaint did not get the result according to law, the word used for the complaint dated 2.3.1996 in a second complaint is not Court (sic correct). If the Court did not pass any order on the first complaint dated 28.2.1996 the complainant was forced to file another complaint dated 2.3.1996 and cognizance on the basis of the materials available on the record after enquiry u/s 201, Code of Criminal Procedure is perfectly in accordance with the provisions of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The revision petition does not disclose merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 11.9.1998 stands discharged.