CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 SHI CK 0154

Hutashan Kumar Shastri vs Smt. Heema Devi

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 8 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal MMO No. 236 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 332 words

Kuldip Singh, Judge

1.

This revision has been directed against order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2011 affirming order dated 23.7.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2009.

2.

Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 406 IPC on the allegations that the articles mentioned in the complaint were given to respondent No.1 at the time of marriage as ISTRIDHAN. She was turned out of her matrimonial home by the petitioner. The articles remained in the custody of petitioner and were not returned on the demand made by respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the petition was filed. The Court recorded the preliminary evidence and issued process to the petitioner on 23.7.2011. The order dated 23.7.2011 was challenged by way of revision by the petitioner which has been affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge on 14.11.2011.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that report u/s 202 Cr.P.c. was called and it was stated in the report that no offence was committed by the petitioner. The trial Court has ignored the report. There was no jurisdiction with the trial Court at Mandi, only Judicial Magistrate at Sundernagar had the jurisdiction over the matter. The Additional Sessions Judge has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner. The complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, who has jurisdiction over whole of the District Mandi including the area within the jurisdiction of Sub Division, Sundernagar. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the complaint and preliminary evidence and in his considered view he came to the view that the case is made out against the petitioner for issuing process. It has not been argued that it is a case of no evidence. The Magistrate is not bound by the report u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, no case is made out for interference. There is no merit in the petition which is resultantly dismissed.