Shri Goswami framed a charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused therein and aggrieved thereby the accused first approached the revisional Court and, having failed there, the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Thereafter on January 29, 1994 the appellant filed another companyplaint against the respondents under Section 498A IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal and on this companyplaint the learned magistrate passed a similar order under Section 156 3 of the Code for registration of a case and investigation.
Adverting number to the two cases of this Court on which reliance has been placed by the High Court we find that in the case of Gopal Das supra the facts were that on receipt of a companyplaint of companymission of offences under Section 147,323,342 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, the Additional District Magistrate made the following endorsement To Shri C. Thomas, Magistrate 1st class, for disposal.
After investigation police submitted a charge sheet under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and on receipt thereof the Additional District Magistrate forwarded to Shri R. Goswami, Magistrate for disposal.
61 of 1988 and on companypletion f investigation submitted charge sheet police report against the three respondents under Section 198A and 406 I P C. The learned Magistrate took companynizance upon the said charge sheet and thereafter framed charge against the three respondents under Section 406 I P C only as, according to the learned Magistrate, the offence under Section 198A I P C was allegedly companymitted in the district of Karnal.
Pursuant to the said direction Thaneswar Police Station registered a case being FIR No.
On receiving the companyplaint Mr. Thomas directed the officer In charge of the Gauhati Police Station to register a case, investigate and if warranted submit a charge sheet.
Against the framing of the charge the respondents moved the Sessions Judge in revision, but without success.
On that companyplaint, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure companye for short directing the police to register a case and investigate into the same.
On February 18, 1988 the appellant filed a companyplaint against the three respondents, who are her husband, father in law and mother in law respectively, before the Chief Magistrate, Kurukshetra alleging companymission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code I P C for short by them.
K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
