Indumauli Tripathi and Another vs The State of Bihar and Another

S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.—Heard Mr. Dikshit, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Mehta, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State and Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

Pursuant to order dated 10.12.1998 the case diary has been received.

Invoking jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioners have impugned the order dated 13.5.1998, by reason of which the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed by the Petitioners.

Opposite party No. 2 Meena Tripathi is the wife of Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi. She lodged a first information report on 31.10.91 alleging, inter alia, ill-treatment meted out to her due to non-fulfilment of the dowry demanded by the family members of her-in-laws.

After completion of the investigation the police filed chargesheet and cognizance of the offence was taken against various sections including 498A of the Penal code. The Petitioners impugned the said order in Cr. Misc. No. 8637 of 1992. However, on 21.7.92 after hearing Petitioners this Court permitted them to withdraw this application with an observation that the Petitioners may raise all these contentions raised in this application at an appropriate stage. Liberty was given to the Petitioners for filing a petition for discharge. Thereafter the parties were heard on the question of discharge, which was rejected by a reasoned order dated 22.1.96. Again the said order was impugned before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5386 of 1996 (Annexure-4). Before this Court a point was advanced that the learned Magistrate without application of mind and without finding sufficient materials for proceedings declined the prayer of the Petitioners for discharge. The learned Single Judge after perusal of the case diary was of the opinion that paragraphs mentioned by the learned Magistrate for his satisfaction were not sufficient to hold that there were sufficient materials for proceeding against the Petitioners. Thus, the said petition was allowed and the order of framing charge was quashed. The matter was remitted'' to the learned Magistrate to rehear the matter on merit and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. This order of the High Court is dated 19.1.98 as contained in Annexure 4. On remand, the learned Magistrate heard the parties arid perused the case diary. From the impugned order it appears that after perusal of paragraphs 3,8,9,10,12,13,16,126,129, 131,137 as well as paragraphs 98 and 120 the Magistrate again found that there were sufficient materials to proceed against the Petitioners.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently urged that except the statement of the victim girl as contained in paragraph-3 of the case diary there is no sufficient material to proceed against the Petitioners. He contends that without sufficient evidence the learned Magistrate ought not to have rejected the prayer of the Petitioners for discharge. Moreover, he submits that before filing of the instant F.I.R. the husband of the informant i.e. Sudhanshu Mauli Tripathi filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of Additional District Judge Patna, giving rise to Divorce Suit No. 29/90. Though it is not adverted in the petition about final decision in the said suit but the learned Counsel submits that the said suit was dismissed and decree was passed in favour of the wife. However, it is stated that the decision of the Family court is pending in the appellate jurisdiction before this Court.

Mr. Mehta, the learned A.P.P. after going through the case diary has strongly countered the argument of Mr. Dikshit. He submits that besides the statement of the victim girl before the police there are overwhelming evidence to connect these Petitioners in the instant case. He has referred to paragraph-3 of the case diary, and some relevant portions of paragraphs. 16, 98, and 120. He has also referred to the statement of the victim girl recorded u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure He has also referred to a letter written by the informant, victim girl, to her father on 1.3.92, which finds place in paragraph 126 of he case diary. According to him at this stage these are sufficient materials before the learned Magistrate for framing charge and thus the impugned order cannot be interfered with.

It is now well settled that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie, believable case is required and seeking of independent corroboration is not justified. Reference has been made on a decision reported in 1997 (2) ECC 94 (S.C.)

After hearing the parties at length and considering the statements made in the case diary I am of the view that no illegality can be found out from the impugned order. The learned Magistrate after going through the relevant paragraphs of the case diary, being satisfied has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the Petitioners. Only because the learned Magistrate has not discussed in detail the statements of the witnesses recorded in various paragraphs of the case diary, in my opinion, cannot be a ground to challenge the order. This Court in order to satisfy itself called for. the case diary and as noticed above Mr. Mehta has drawn my attention to various paragraphs of the case diary from which at least, prima facie, believable case is made out.

I find no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.