Shophia Khatoon and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Shophia Khatoon and ors. vs State of Jharkhand and anr.

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Dec 20, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/522607

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/522607
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.
Decided On: Dec 20, 2004
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 455 of 2003
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Revision dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3 and 4--Revision--Against order taking cognizance thereunder--Application under Section 482, CrPC seeking quashing of order taking cognizance--Already dismissed--Application seeking dishcarge under Section 239, CrPC also dismissed--Revision aga...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 239 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shophia Khatoon and ors.

Advocate Delip Jerath and; Atanu Banerjee, Advs.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and anr.

Advocate A.K. Sahani, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 239 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4
Reported In: 2005(2)BLJR890

Excerpt

penal code, 1860, section 498-a - dowry prohibition act, 1961, sections 3 and 4--revision--against order taking cognizance thereunder--application under section 482, crpc seeking quashing of order taking cognizance--already dismissed--application seeking dishcarge under section 239, crpc also dismissed--revision against impugned order-allegations of physical torture, demand for cash and goods against accused revisionist prima facie found establishing offence--allegation supported by an independent witness as well--prima facie case under section 498-a, ipc and sections 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act, made out--no ground made out for quashing of order taking cognizance of offence. - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso...........was given for such delay. neither specific date nor time of threat or any incident has been shown by the complainant-opposite party no. 2. the allegations are general, in nature, and no specific allegations have been made against any of the petitioners. though it was alleged that because of manhandling by the petitioners, the complainant-opposite party no. 2 sustained injury, but no certificate of treatment by any doctor was led as evidence. it was submitted that the complainant-opposite party no. 2, in fact, left her husband's house. when she went to the house of her parent at that time she was pregnant. but thereafter, she never returned in the house of her in-laws. it was further submitted that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant-opposite party no. 2. further plea has been taken that the petitioners were in-laws (brother-in-law and sister-in- law) of complainant-opposite party no. 2 and are residing separately and no case is being made out against them.5. the learned court below on hearing the parties, noticed the case diary and the evidence. it having found that there was allegation of physical torture, assault and demand of dowry of rs. 40,000/- and one of the witnesses abdul ajiz having supported the case of the complainant-opposite party no. 2, held that prima facie, a case under section 498a, ipc and section 3/4 of d.p. act was made out and there was sufficient evidence to bring home the charges.6. in the facts and circumstances, i find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 7th may, 2003, passed by the learned sub divisional judicial magistrate, bokaro in g.r. case no. 751 of 2001.7. there being no merit, this revision application is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J.

1. This revision application has been preferred by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 7th May, 2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 751 of 2001, whereby and where under the petition under Section 239 of the Cr PC for their discharge has been rejected.

2. According to the petitioners Opposite Party No. 2 Shabnam Khatoon wife of Kamaluddin Ansari filed a Complaint Case No. 256 of 2001, in pursuance of which FIR was instituted as Bermo P.S. Case No. 126 of 2001 and the police completed investigation.

3. After submission of charge-sheet the learned ACJM Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance against the petitioners and Kamaluddin Ansari for the offences under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short D.P. Act). A Criminal Misc. Petition No. 238 of 2002 was filed before this Court under Section 482, Cr PC to quash the order of cognizance but it was dismissed on 13th June 2002 with observations that the petitioners may raise all the points before the trial Court at appropriate stage. Thereafter the petitioners preferred petition under Section 239, Cr PC for their discharge but it was rejected by impugned order dated 7th May, 2003.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case was lodged after long delay and no explanation was given for such delay. Neither specific date nor time of threat or any incident has been shown by the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2. The allegations are general, in nature, and no specific allegations have been made against any of the petitioners. Though it was alleged that because of manhandling by the petitioners, the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 sustained injury, but no certificate of treatment by any doctor was led as evidence. It was submitted that the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2, in fact, left her husband's house. When she went to the house of her parent at that time she was pregnant. But thereafter, she never returned in the house of her in-laws. It was further submitted that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2. Further plea has been taken that the petitioners were in-laws (brother-in-law and sister-in- law) of complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 and are residing separately and no case is being made out against them.

5. The learned Court below on hearing the parties, noticed the case diary and the evidence. It having found that there was allegation of physical torture, assault and demand of dowry of Rs. 40,000/- and one of the witnesses Abdul Ajiz having supported the case of the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2, held that prima facie, a case under Section 498A, IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act was made out and there was sufficient evidence to bring home the charges.

6. In the facts and circumstances, I find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 7th May, 2003, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 751 of 2001.

7. There being no merit, this revision application is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2004 Same Parties Shophia Khatoon and ors. vs State of Jharkhand and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 239 and 482; Ind...

Criminal