Smti. Tilaka Das vs Smti. Rina Das

S. Haque, J.—Heard learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Choudhury for the Petitioner Smti. Tilaka Das, accused No. 2 in C.R. case No. 2122 of 1986 u/s 403/406 of the I.P.C. of the Court of tbe Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nowgong, Complainant Smt. Rina Das instituted that case against Shri Kameswar Das, her husband and Smti. Tilaka Das, her mother-in-law. She was married to the accused No. 1 in the year 1980 and lived together till June, 1983. The articles described in Schedule ''KA'' of the complaint petition were givan in her marriage and those are her Saridhaa property. These properties were taken to the house of her husband where they used those till June, 1983.

It is alleged in the complaint petition that the was fortured by the family members including accused Nos. 1 and 2 and inally driven her out of the house on 22.6.83 by her husband. She was compelled to take shelter in the house of her parent with her minor daughter. It is further alleged that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 retained her Saridhaa property and have not returned those to her inspite of repeated reminders. She could come to know that her husband and mother-in-law are trying to mis-appropriate those Shridhan properties by disposing and selling the articles on the plea of paying her arrear maintenance allowances obtained by her in M.R. case No. 51 of 1984.

Having taken cognizance of the complaint petition, Addl. C.J.M. examined the complainant under the provision of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and forming opinion issued process under Section. Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further directed to issue search warrant for seizure of the articles and Exhibit ''Ka'' by order dt. 16.5.86 which is now impugned. The properties have been seized and placed in the zimma of the complainant.

Mr. J.M. Choudhury submits that the Petitioner (accused No. 2) and her son (accused No. 1) will not resist the complainant in getting her property seized in the case.

It appears from the complaint petition and the progress so far made in the complaint case that prima facie case u/s 403/406 have been made out on the basis of the allegations in the complaint without going into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. So it will not be proper to entertain an application to exercise power u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. It will be an error to entertain a quashing proceedings u/s 482, when once prima facie being satisfied, the Magistrate have taken cognizance of the alleged offences. The question at this stage, is not whether there was any truth in the allegation in complaint, but it is whether on the basis of the allegation a cognizable offence has been presumed to have been committed. The facts that may be subsequently found out to prove the truth or otherwise of the allegations will not be a ground on the basis of which application for quashing is to be entertained. Taking the allegations in the complaint to be true without adding or subscribing anything thereto, it can be stated that a prima facie case for trial is made out (relied J.P. Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others,

In view of the facts thera is no scope at this stage for entertaining a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. As submitted by Mr. Choudhury earlier, the accused persons may submit a petition before the trial Court expressing their intention not to resist the complainant in getting her property seized. The trial Court will persuade upon the complainant to compound the case if such a petition is filed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly. Send copy of this order to Addl. C.J.M., Nowgong.