Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1565 of 2005 Revisionist :- Kshitize @ Man Mohan And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Neelmani Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of revisionists or opposite party No. 2 even in the revised list. Heard learned AGA and perused the record.
This criminal revision under section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 18.2.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Criminal Complaint No.76 of 2004(Neeti vs. Kshitize Kumar) whereby revisionists have been summoned under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.
Ground of revision is that impugned order is against the material available on record and against the set principle of law and liable to be set aside.
From perusal of record, it transpires that one complaint was filed by wife Smt. Neeti/opposite party No. 2 against her husband Kshitize @ Man Mohan and family members of husband alleging that her marriage was solemnized with revisionist on 4.7.2003 but after marriage for non- fulfilment of demand of motorcycle and Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, they tortured and deserted/ousted her from the matrimonial home on 21.11.2003. When on 19.1.2004 she went alongwith her father Cheetarmal and maternal uncle Rajesh Kumar and asked to return the articles of dowry but they refused to return the same.
Complainant got herself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and P.W.-1 Smt. Janak Dulari and P.W.-2 Cheetarmal Sharma under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and they supported the version of complaint. Thereafter impugned order was passed.
It is settled principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance or issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the court is required to apply its mind and if he finds sufficient ground, it may take cognizance and issue process of summons.
In the case of Swarn Anand v. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1977 Cr.L.J. 355 (All), this Court has held that the expression "in the opinion of a Magistrate" means that the Magistrate has to merely form an opinion as to the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. It does not require him to record any reasons for his so doing.
In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar Jhanjhri, 1990 Cr.L.J. 773, the Court has held that at this stage the defence of the accused is not the concern of the Court and it is only for the accused to appear and then put his defence which is to be considered by the Court at the time of framing of charge.
In the case of Anil Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 204, the Apex court has held that the defence open to the accused is not to be seen at the time of issuance of process.
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 P.P.