Aruna Patel vs State of U.P.& Anr.

R.C. Deepak, J.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the preliminary objection for providing an opportunity of hearing to the learned Counsel for the proposed accused.

I have considered his submission. Since no order has been passed against the proposed respondent, learned Counsel appearing on their behalf has no locus standi to be heard.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

It has vehemently been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a qualified cultured lady and she is M.Sc. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and torture to her in this regard. Certain forged documents were prepared to show the mutual consent to divorce. The application (Annexure1) discloses the commission of cognizable offence. It was obligatory on the part of learned Magistrate to have directed for the registration of the case, but surprisingly enough the learned Magistrate as well as the learned revisional Court did not act with the spirit of Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. and scrutinized the circumstance alleged as legal evidence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders dated 1832005 and 282005 passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter within 10 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and pass a fresh order directing for the registration of the case to initiate investigation.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.