Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 757 (PAT)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2000-06-21

S.N.PATHAK

body2000
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the impugned order dated 26.7.1995 whereby the Magistrate refused to discharge the petitioner. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the alleged husband of the complainant, namely, Rukmini Devi, and other petitioners are Bhainsur and Gotani and alleged mother-in-law. 3. The petitioners lawyer submitted that there is no marriage at all, as alleged, by the informant on 28.1.1992. Petitioner No. 1 had already filed an application on 31.1.1992 for his wrongful confinement in the house of the father of the complainant where forced mutual garlanding of the petitioner and the informant took place on the basis of which a marriage is claimed by the informant. This case was instituted on 19.3.1993. It Was further submitted that since there was no marriage and no co-habitation of the informant with the petitioner No. 1 and his other relations, there is no question of any torture. 4. On perusal of the complaint petition it transpired that there was the alleged marriage of the complainant with petitioner No. 1 and there was demand of Rs. 50,000/- and Rajdoot Motor Cycle etc. However, these demands were not met and on intervention of the punchas the complainant was taken by the petitioner No. 1 to his house where she lived for three months. Subsequently her relations with the sasural people got estranged and she was being tortured in several ways. She was also assaulted occasionally. Once she was doused in Kerosene Oil and attempted to be burnt. However, she escaped any-how and went to her Naihar. The period of the occurrence had been described as occurring from 28.1.1992 up to 19.9.1995. 5. As per submissions of both the parties, it transpires that this was a case of disputed marriage and alleged denial of dowry and torture. So, the case of the prosecution and the defence shall be decided during the course of the trial. 6. I do not think, there is any suitable occasion to exercise of power under Section 482, Cr PC. Hence, this application is dismissed.