1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Dhana Ramn Versus Durga Devi & ors. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.639/2007 ... Date of Order: July 26, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Rohitash Singh, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: The petitioner filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) against the respondents. By the order dated 21-3-2007, the trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no material to proceed against the respondents. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court dated 21-3-2007, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Carefully gone through the order impugned passed by the trial Court. 2 It appears that respondent No.1 Durga Devi contacted a “Nata” marriage with Ashok, who is the son of the petitioner. It is stated that at the time of contacting “Nata” marriage with Ashok, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to respondent No.2 Shankar Lal, the father of respondent No.1 Durga Devi. The complainant-petitioner came with the case that Durga Devi went to her parents house and took her ornaments and thereafter she came back and started living with the petitioner, his son Ashok and other family members. However, respondent No.3 Nirmal, the brother of Durga Devi, filed an application under Section 97 of the Code before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and in pursuance thereof, the police recovered Durga Devi in the confinement and produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who recorded her statement, set her free and allowed her to go with her brother. A criminal case has been registered by Durga Devi against the petitioner, his son and other family members under Section 498-A, IPC on 29-5- 2006 being Criminal Case No.56/2006. The matter was investigated by the police and the police filed Challan against the petitioner and others, which has been registered as Criminal Case No.56/2006. Thereafter the petitioner filed a complaint against Durga Devi etc. The trial Court, on the basis of the material before it, and also taking into account the fact that Durga Devi has already registered a criminal case against the 3 petitioner and others, on the basis of which the police carried out the investigation and filed Challan against them which is pending trial, as also the fact that Durga Devi was released from the confinement of the petitioner in pursuance of the search warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 97 of the Code, came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondents. In my view, the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs