Santosh Kumar Singh and others vs State of U.P. and another

Rajesh Chandra, J.—The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 21.8.2010 by which the Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia has summoned the revisionists for the offences under Sections 498A. 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Rani Singh filed a complaint against the present revisionist Santosh Kumar Singh and others alleging therein that the complainant Rani Singh was married to Santosh Kumar Singh about 10 years back and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given but her in-laws were not satisfied with the same. Further the allegation is that the accused persons were consistently pressing a demand for the T.V., Fridge. Cooler and ( Rs. ) one lakh in cash and due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the complainant somehow being teased and harassed. On 25.3.2010 at about 2.00 p.m., the complainant was severely beaten and an attempt was also made to ablaze her by pouring kerosene oil. The complainant somehow managed to escape and came to her parental house. She was also medically examined.

Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant u/s 200, Cr. P.C. in which she confirmed the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate also recorded the statements of Amarnath Singh and Kharak Bahadur Singh u/s 202, Cr. P.C. in which they also confirmed that the accused persons were making demand of-dowry and Smt. Rani Singh was being harassed and teased for the same.

After considering the evidence, the Magistrate passed the order which is under challenge in this revision.

During the pendency of the revision in this Court, the matter was sent to the Mediation Centre so that some amicable settlement may take place between the parties but the Mediation Centre has reported that the mediation has failed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The learned counsel for the revisionists argued that the Magistrate has passed the impugned order in a routine manner without there being any evidence on record.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the revisionists. In the case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose and Another, , the Hon''ble Apex Court held that at the stage of inquiry u/s 202. Cr. P.C., the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. Again in the case of Smt. Nagwwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kanjalgi and others, 1976 (1) ACC 225 (SC), while considering the scope of enquiry u/s 202. Cr. P.C., the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of truth of falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima-facie case for issue of process has been made out : (c) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In that case, it has been held by way of illustration that the order of Magistrate issuing process can be quashed where the allegations made in the complainant or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value made out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an office which is alleged against accused.

In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2002 (44) ACC 168 : 2002 (1) ACR 219 (SC), the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that at the stage of passing order u/s 203. Cr. P.C. searching sufficient ground to convict is not necessary.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the same has been passed after considering the evidence available on record and there is no illegality in the same. There was evidence of the complainant to the effect that there was demand of dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the same, the complainant was being abused, threatened and beaten as well. This order of the trial court is perfectly valid and calls for no interference at this stage.

Revision is accordingly dismissed.

However, considering the nature of the offence, it is provided that if the revisionists surrender before the trial court within three weeks from today and move an application for bail, their bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously, if possible, the same day.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court by registered post A.D.