9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashment of order regarding maintainability of complaint under Dowry Prohibition Act 2. Barred by limitation, lack of proper sanction, and delay in filing complaint 3. Interpretation of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Dowry Prohibition Act 4. Discharge of petitioners due to lack of proper sanction and subsequent filing of fresh complaint 5. Invocation of Section 470 of the Code for condoning delay 6. Application of Section 258 and 300(5) of the Code regarding discharge and consent of Magistrate 7. Magistrate's discretion in condoning delay without proper explanation Analysis: The revision petition sought quashment of the order regarding the maintainability of a complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners argued that the complaint was time-barred, lacked proper sanction, and the delay in filing was not justified. The complainant alleged demands for dowry and subsequent harassment, leading to her expulsion from the house. The police initially filed a complaint, but it was stayed due to improper sanction. After a delay, a fresh complaint was filed with the necessary sanction obtained. The petitioners contended that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be invoked due to the Dowry Prohibition Act's specific limitations. However, the court held that Section 470 of the Code could be applied to condone the delay, citing previous judgments supporting the applicability of the Code to special acts like the Dowry Prohibition Act. Regarding the discharge of petitioners due to lack of proper sanction and subsequent filing of a fresh complaint, the court rejected the argument that the Magistrate's consent was required under Section 300(5) of the Code. The court reasoned that once the court had granted permission to investigate and taken cognizance, it implied consent for trying the petitioners for the same offense. The petitioners' plea on this issue was dismissed. The court further analyzed the Magistrate's discretion in condoning the delay without a proper explanation. It was observed that no explanation was provided for the significant delay between the discharge of petitioners and the filing of the fresh complaint. The Magistrate's decision to condone the delay without a valid explanation was deemed improper. As the prosecution failed to justify the inactivity during the period, the court concluded that the Magistrate erred in condoning the delay. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition, quashed the impugned order, dismissed the complaint as time-barred, and discharged the petitioners.
|
