Phool Chand Chandel vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 10.8.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metrocity, Jaipur whereby he accepted the criminal revision No.29/2018 and had set aside the order dated 12.1.2018 passed by the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metrocity, Jaipur.

Briefly stated, the petitioner/complainant had lodged the FIR No.469/2014 at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. The said FIR was investigated and the investigating agency filed the Final Report in negative form. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner complainant filed a protest petition and examined five witnesses. The court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metrocity, Jaipur vide order dated 12.1.2018 took the cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.

The complainant/petitioner in the FIR had set out a case that on 8.5.2014 he was married with respondent no.2 Smt. Sumitra @ Suman. The complainant alleged that it was concealed from him at time of marriage that the respondent no.2 had undergone brain surgery and in the brain artificial pipes were inserted. The complainant stated that mental ailment of respondent no.2 was not disclosed by the accused. After the protest petition was filed, on the evidence led by the complainant, the court below took the cognizance of offences.

In the preliminary evidence, petitioner had not examined any doctor and had led no medical evidence. The accused against whom cognizance of offences was taken, filed a revision petition. The revisional court below gave credence to the stand of the accused that the petitioner in order to procure divorce has filed the protest petition to pressurize the relations of his wife. The revisional court below further held that no report of medical jurist was produced on record to fortify the submission that wife of the petitioner was suffering from any mental ailment. The court further held that marriage was performed with the consent of the parties and for a good period of eight to nine months of marriage no complaint was made.

The reasons stated by the revisional court below are justifiable. The view taken by the revisional court below cannot be termed perverse, hence, no interference is warranted and the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.