HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISSARH ATBILASPUR CR-MISC.PET.NO. 359/2008 SB : Hou'ble Mr. T.p. Sliarma, J. PETITIONERS Manisti Hinfiuia- S/o. Shri Tiilsi nsa?; ? T : --^ --1 - - : ^ - --^ -i or^ /~^1 . ^ ^^ ..- - 2. .<? RESPONDENTS Versus 1. riiiiu.ujSL, a.geci ^y ycoLfs, \jccupa.u.oii. Business Tiilsirlas ffindiija, S/o. Shri ^ilraTn nss hia.duja., aged 58 years, Occupatlori Business Smt. Geete W/o. Sliri T^ilsi Oas Hio.uuja., s.gcd 48 years, AU are r/o. B/103, Tulsi Tower, 5/1, Dr. R.S. Bhaadari Marg, ladorc SiTit AmisTia Hindiija- W/o. 'Shri TT ^ _S 2. MaAiisii i-iiiiciuja, ag€;ci ^y yeaxs, presenfly residuig at LIG-8, Indrawati Colony, Raipur State of ChliattiRgart, Throiigli P.S. Civfl Line, Raipur (CG) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PrREsent: Shri S.K.Vyas, Sr. Arlvocate with STiri VisTimi Koshtfl, counscl ibr ttie petitioners. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate for fhe State. ORAL ORDBR (Passcd oa l't Augsut, 2008) This petition is directed agamst t1ie onler riated 13.5.2008 passcd hy tjiidirial Magistrate First C1ass, Raipiir in Cr. Case No. unregistered/08 in criminal complaint. wherehy ieameri >Iudicial Magistrate First Class, Raipiir after examimng the coTnplainaTiit and Tier witnesses iindcr Section 200 and 202 oftTie Corie ofCriminal Proceonire, taken cogni7ance fi-ir e ofFcnce punisViahle iinder Scction 406 of tne IndiaTi Pena1 Code against tlie petitioners. ^^"3.'"""' /i^L 1^ ^J ^'^ s! ^s-. (\^) 2. TTie orrler is clialtengcd on ttie groiind tliat. witlimit anv priina facie efFRctive evidencc, trial Coiirt has takcn cogniyance and issiied proc'ess against the applicant. 3. Heard coiinsel for the respective parties on arimission. 4. It is ?argiied on beTialf of the petit.ioTie.rs that coniplainant ArmsTia Hindiya is vvife ofpetitioner No.1 and dailgTiter in law of netitioTiRT No.2 and 3. Shc has 1eft Ticr inatrimoTiial hoiise. i.e. hoiise oft.Tie netitioners on 25.10.2006 a1ong witti omamRnts and clot.he.s. PctitioTier No.1 Tias reportcd the Tnatter t.o tlie police from tiTne to time tiiat complainant is thereatening Tiim and Tiis faTnily memhers fhat she will iinplicate t.hem in a fa1sc case. Finally; petitioner No.1 has filed thc petition for restitiition of conjiigal rigTits iinrlcr Section 9 of t^he Hindii MarriagR Act, Indorc. PetitioTicr called for reconciliation wTiere slie appeared and ttie matter was reconcfled. TliRreaftcr, instRad of going with the petitioner No.'l- she filed complainaTlt. and lorlged report against t.he petitioners for tTie offence Tninishabte iinder Section 408-A and 34 of t.he. Indian Pena1 Codf and anottier comnlaint for t^he ofFence iinder Section 406 of the Indian Penal Corle on e groiinri that fhe petitioTiers tias misappropriated 1ier siridhan. 5. 1t. is a1so siihimtted on heTialf of the petitioners ttiat wTien tTie coTnplainant lodged tTie report against t.he pRtit.ione.rs for tTie offencc piinishable iinder Scction 498-A of tlie iTidian Penal Code, she Tias not stated anytTling relatirtg to imsappropriation of her fstridfinn. She tiss filed scparate complamt against the petitioners in wTncli sTie Tias Tiot riven the details of tlie alleged Tironertv sTiown in tTie list siifficicnt for identification. Rven tlie police have siAmitted fhe report that riiiring fhf coiirse of irivestigation for the offence piiTnsTiable Tinder Section 4'38-A of fhe Indian Pe.nal Code, the complainant Tiaf! not stated relating to lier striilhan. to hc retiimed. 1t. is siitimitted on heTialf of the pe.titioners tliat the comnlainaTit. and Tierwitnesse.s Tias not describer! in rletail relatine to fhe property an(i t.hey Tiave said t.hat t.he property given at t.he time. of marriage is sTiown in tlie tist biit wTiat. was the actiial prope.rty is not mentioned. 1t is fiirthRr argiied tTiat tTie allegation madc in t1ie coTnplamt ^ Y^ \^ -°>- and statement. rccorded iinder Section 200 and 202 of the Corie. of Criminal Proccrliire are absiird and on'ly to Tiarass and ininlicate tJiem rn a felse casc, tlie coTnTilainant and liRnvitneascs liave inade ariesationa. [t. is also siAinittfid thst. it is a fit case to quash tTie proceedmgs m execiition ofinTierRTlt nirisriic'tion. 6. On the ofher TiRTirl; registratioT) nf a compiaint teking cognfafaTiCR, is siipported on behalf of the responrlent. No.2 and argiied that the coinplaiTiant. was oiisted froin 1ier TnatriTnonial Tioiise. Shc lodgcfi ttie report for ttie offence iinder Scotion 498-A of t.he 1PC and she Tias filed separate comnlaint. relating to siridhan- STie is competeTit. to fi1e it SRperately. W1ien tTie petitionera fafler] to retiim tTie fstridhan tlierfafter, stic Tiad lodged a sepai-ate coTnplaint after a lapse oftwo years. 7. TTlis is a pRtition iinder ScRtion 482 of thp- code of Criminal Proccdiire for invoking inTierRTitjiirisdiotion. Ttie scope ofinterferRncR in exerrise of revisional nirisdiction is verv limiterl. It cannot bc iised- •m case, ifaltemative remedv is available. 8. Arlmitt.edly, acconling to fhe case of the petitioners, t}ie complainant has lodged a report against the appticant after a lapse of one year and ahe Tias filed ttiis coTnplaint after a lapse of inore tTian onc and Tialfyear ofleaving tTie hoiise of petitioners i.e. matrimonial tiouse and eve.n aftcr filing of ttie petition iinder Section 9 of ttie Hindii Marriage Act. 9. PreseTit. coniplaint Tias been filed afte-r a de1ay of more t1iar) one and a Tialfyear oftlie leaving oftTie hoiise ofapplicant No.1. This sloTie is not siifficiRnt for rRJecting tTie coinplaint or Tunngnlg "thF. same as iffft afterthoiigTit or a complaint wit.h a view of Tiarrass t1ip. applicants. Th\s groiind may 'be taken at tTie time of defp.nce and there is no^liar for lodging Tlie report or filing thc distinct coinnlaint. for tTie offence minishabte iinder Se-ction 4Q8-A anri 406 of the Tnriian Penal Code and complainant. may addiice evidence relating to the description ofpropei-b' at ttie time ofpassing t1ie evidence before the cTiarge. T1ns is not tlie case r ISI BEBRSS'SSBl'S in wliicTi if Tield, allcgation Tnade in a coTnplaint. is accepted in its face valuc hy ihe applicants thcn cven conviction cannot be possibte.. In the stateinent recorded iinder Section 200 and 202 of thc Code of Criminal Procediire, the non-applicant and her witnesses Tias siipported t1ie facts of thc coTnplaint anri spcc'ifically stflted tTiat the prope.rly of Rtridhnn is Tnisappropriated vn the list annexed . 10. Accorriing to the list thc property is of omanients, clotlies, crockery and otlier iteins. According to the rcport lodged hy thc petitioner No. 1 to the polioe, tJhe complainant hari left Tier Timise with 'the clotTies and omainents. At this stegc, ttie coinplainant and lier witnesscs are not. rc"qinrRd to descrihe in detail. 1 1. Afterappraising the evidence and mat.erial apart; trial Coiirt tias after taking cognizance of the facts, issiied process against ttie petitioners on t.he basis of steteinent of tTic witnesses rccordcd iindcr Section 200 and 202 oftlie C^ide ofCriminal ProccdiirR. 1 do not find any illegality or any grmind for invoking inherentjiirisdiction. 12. Conseqiiently, e netition is disinisscd at the stegc ofadmission. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge