AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. K. Rathi, J.—This is a revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P.C. against the order dated 941992 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1991.
The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:
The petitioner/revisionist is a married wife of Deoraj of No. 1. There was a dispute between them and therefore, the petitioner started living separately. She filed a complaint for offences under Sections 406 and 498A, I.P.C. with the allegations that the articles of Stridhan given to her at the time of her marriage have not been returned and have been misappropriated by opposite parties No. 1 to 5. That they have also committed an offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. as they made a demanded for dowry and turned out the applicant from the house for nonpayment of dowry. On the complaint opposite parties No. 1 to 5 were summoned by the Magistrate. Against the summoning order, opposite parties filed Criminal
Revision No. 84 of 1991 before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur which has been allowed by an order dated 941992 by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
4.1 have heard Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.C. Saxena, learned counsel for opposite parties and have perused the record.
The perusal of the order of the revisional Court shows that the revision has been allowed on a very flimsy ground that the photo copies of the letters of demand only have been filed. That the original letters have not been filed and have not been proved. The learned Additional Sessions Judge overlooked the fact that the evidence was to be led in the Court under Sections 244 and 246, Cr. P.C. The revisionist therefore, had an opportunity to file the original receipts at the time of evidence. The photo copies prima facie proved the case and the summoning order could be passed on the basis of the photo copies. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order for insufficient and improper grounds.
There is allegation that the opposite parties have not returned Stridhan and they also made a demand of dowry. These questions of fact can be decided after evidence. Therefore, the revision is fit to be allowed.
The revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 941992 of the revisional Court is quashed. The trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. Revision allowed.