Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1077 (PAT)

Kanhaiya Lal Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2007-07-06

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The three petitioners herein who happen to be the relatives of the husband of the complainant Sunita Devi have sought to invoke the powers of this Court u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 8.8.1999 passed by the learned C.J.M. Bhabhua in Complaint Case No. 446(C) of 1999 as also the entire criminal prosecution. 3. O.P. No. 2 Sunita Devi brought the complaint aforesaid, inter alia, alleging that her marriage with Manoj Kumar Gupta was solemnized on 4.6.1994 and shortly a few months thereafter the husband, the mother-in-law, Devar and Bhaisur started torturing her on account of not bringing a motorcycle in marriage and she was subjected to cruelty and tortured for fulfillment of the demand of a Hero Honda motorcycle. Several further allegations have also been made against the accused persons including the husband of the complainant having an illicit relationship with his Devrani. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the husband Manoj Kumar Gupta had sent a legal notice to the complainant of come to Allahabad and live with him since she had deserted the husband from March 1995 but there was no response by way of the complainant arriving at the marital home. Disgusted with the behaviour of the complainant the husband filed Matrimonial Case No. 305 of 1998 before the Family Court at Allahabad u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in the alternative a prayer for dissolution of marriage was also made and it was only thereafter that the instant complaint case came to be filed impleading all the family members and the relatives of the husband as accused at Bhabhua as the complainant was residing at her mothers house at Bhabhua, it has also been submitted that a compromise petition was filed in the Court below following amicable settlement between the husband and wife. 5. According to the petitioners they were in no way connected with the marital affairs of the complainant and she with her husband Manoj Kumar Gupta was residing separately from the other in the marital home and event-fully the husband expired before the matrimonial case could be disposed of. 5. According to the petitioners they were in no way connected with the marital affairs of the complainant and she with her husband Manoj Kumar Gupta was residing separately from the other in the marital home and event-fully the husband expired before the matrimonial case could be disposed of. It has also been submitted that Uma Devi and Sharda Kumar the Jethani and Bhaisur respectively earlier moved this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 14486 of 2000 wherein by order dated 8.10.2001, the said case application filed by them was allowed and the criminal proceeding so far as they were concerned was quashed. 6. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the same benefits should also extend to the petitioners herein. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance so far as these petitioners Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Anuta Gupta, Dayawanti Devi are concerned are hereby quashed.