news details |
|
|
| Court chargesheets bank employee for torturing wife | | Dowry case | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 27: Special Municipal Magistrate (SMM) Jammu has charge sheeted three members of a family including an employee of Jammu and Kashmir Bank for torturing wife for Dowry purposes.
The employee named Amit Gupta, who is working as an Associate Executive in Jammu and Kashmir Bank has been alongwith brother and mother, charged with torturing his wife and intimidating to eliminate her. Court of Special Municipal Magistrate has directed prosecution to adduce evidence for the charges slapped on the accused.
Court, however, said that it could not find ingredients of section 406 RPC in the charges levelled against the accused Amit Gupta and his family members. Counsel for the accused stated that present proceedings Amit Gupta and his family members are untenable as complaint was lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) by the complainant which was forwarded to electricity magistrate.
He further said that electricity magistrate had directed SHO Women cell for investigation on June 9, 2011 but the complainant did not submit the complaint with the concerned policed station for more than one month and 16 days. Counsel for accused termed it as inordinate delay in lodging FIR and said that it was fatal for the case.
He went on to state that judging from all the corners, offence under section 406 RPC is not made against the accused because Dowry items have not been misappropriated. However, SPO on behalf of the complainant said that material assembled and evidence collected by the investigating officers clearly points to booking accused under sections 498-A/406/506/34RPC.
Special Municipal Magistrate V.S.Bhou stated that police has presented charge sheet alongwith statement of witnesses and the documents which clearly connects accused with the commission of offence under sections 498-A/506/34RPC. He maintained that there is sufficient material to presume prima facie that the accused can be tried for the offences for which they have been booked.
Court further said that FIR delayed cannot be taken note at this stage because sufficient explanation has been tendered by the complainant in her statement for the delayed FIR. Court took note of the fact that Dowry was demanded by the petitioner and in pursuance to that the same was handed over to the petitioner and his family. The court discharged the accused of the offence under section 406 RPC but initiated proceedings against them for the commission of offences under section 498-A/506/34RPC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
