State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 145 / 1997
State of Rajasthan

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Mumtaz Ali son of Noor Mohd.

2. Smt. Hazara w/o Noor Mohd.

Both by caste Musalman resident of Kumharon ka Mohalla,
P.S. Gangashar, Bikaner.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : None.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, PP.
__
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Order
08/08/2017

1. As per the statement made by the complainant alleging

dowry harassment she stated that 10-12 years before the date

when she approached the Police Authorities she had returned to

her parental house. On the basis of the statement FIR for an

offence punishable under Section 498A IPC was registered.

2. With reference to Section 468 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate

has rightly returned the finding that it was a case where limitation

came in the way. The learned Magistrate has refused to take

cognizance.

3. I have perused the statement of the complainant. As per her

statement she had left the house of her inlaws 10-12 years back.

4. In the revision petition it is stated that the offence

punishable under Section 498A IPC is continuous offence.

(2 of 2)
[CRLR-145/1997]

5. It is not so.

6. I have perused the statement made by the lady. She does

not talk of any illegal detention of her property. On her statement

no offence is made out under Section 406 IPC.

7. The petition is dismissed.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

Mohit Tak

READ  Gangappa S/O Neelavva Madar vs The State Of Karnataka, on 29 June, 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *