Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 356 (PAT)

Prabir Kumar Roy v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-03

DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD

body2000
Judgment DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD, J. 1. The application filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order, dated 3.12.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 197 of 1996 arising out of Govind or P.S. Case No. 14/96 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application are that the opposite-party No. 2 Smt. Bala Roy filed a case alleging therein that she was legally married with the petitioner on 20.9.1992 as Calcutta persuance of an advertisement in the newspapers at the instance of the petitioner. During the marriage, the father of the complainant/opposite-party No. 2 gave gold ornaments, furniture, etc. and the complainant was taken by the petitioner to his house but after some time the petitioner started torturing the complainant in various ways physically and mentally. It is further alleged that the petitioner and others also started assaulting the complainant and the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and due to non-fulfilment of the demand, the petitioner was driven away from the house. 3. The police investigation into the case and submitted final form and accordingly the learned Magistrate took cognizance by an order, dated 3.12.1996. 4. Heard Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the applicant and also Mr. N.N. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the State. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the whole prosecution case has been concocted in order to harass the petitioner and actually he is not the husband of the opposite-party No. 2 as no marriage could be solemnised. It is also submitted that a case under Section 125 of the Cr PC has already been filed by the complainant/ opposite-party No. 2 in which the complainant claimed maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month from the petitioner but the Court below rejected the claim of the opposite-party No. 2 for monthly maintenance on the ground that there was no valid marriage with the petitioner, rather the complainant has been married to a different person, namely, Shanapan Das which is evident from the Hindu Marriage register recorded in Case No. 2270, dated 8.10.1998 vide Annexures 2 and 2/1. It is also submitted that the police submitted final report in this case as the petitioner is not legally married with the opposite-party No. 2 and so the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is not made out. It is also argued that there is no sanction in respect of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, therefore, the cognizance taken for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is illegal and bad in law. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance by the Court below as the learned Court found prima facie case against the petitioner. It is further argued that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner, who had married with opposite-party No. 2 on 20.8.1992 and the petitioner also demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the demand, she was subjected to torture as well as the complainant specifically stated that the accused persons including the petitioner manipulated some documents in Calcutta for the purpose of defrauding the complainant and some fake marriage register paper has been created with a view to harass the complainant lady. It is further argued that actually police submitted charge-sheet in this case after investigation, finding the case true under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and there is no scope to assail the impugned order. 7. There is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that the complainant is legally married wife of the petitioner and marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and customs on 20.8.1992 in Calcutta. The police submitted final form after investigation. The Magistrate taking cognizance also considered the entire allegations made in the complaint petition and gone through the evidence in the case diary and took cognizance after findings prima facie case. Thus, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr PC should not interfere with the said order. It is also settled that the inherent power for quashing the criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly. Thus, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr PC should not interfere with the said order. It is also settled that the inherent power for quashing the criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly. It is true that some documents, i.e., Annexures 2 and 2/1 have been filed from the side of the petitioner but in the matter of quashing of the first information report or the criminal proceedings, this Court is not supposed to meticulously examined the documents produced by the accused-persons in their defence at this stage. The final form was submitted after investigation against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A, 313, IPC and 314 of D.P. Act against the petitioner but the address of the petitioner could not be verified or ascertained. 8. It is true that the prosecution under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act without sanction is not permissible as sanction is essential for the prosecution for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is illegal and, it is, therefore, quashed. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfectly legal and valid for the offence under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which does not required to be interfered. 10. However, the petitioner may raise all these points before the Court below at the appropriate stage of trial. It is made clear that any expression or observation made in this order shall not in any way prejudice the case of the petitioner in subsequent stage and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by this order. With the above observation, this application is disposed of.