Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1613 (PAT)

Navin Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-10-01

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioner herein who has been impleaded as one of the accused in Complaint Case No. 209(C) of 2002 through this application seeks the quashing of order dated 24.5.2007 passed by Shri Parshuram Shukla, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 310 of 2005 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 20.8.2005 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in the aforesaid Complaint Case whereunder he has refused to discharge the petitioner. 2. One Babulal Singh had filed the aforesaid complaint alleging inter alia that his daughter Geeta Devi had been married to the petitioner herein on 22.5.1994 and out of the wedlock a girl child was born and although sufficient articles in gift was given at the time of the marriage, after the birth of the girl child the accused and his family members started assaulting Geeta Devi on petty matters and asked her to bring a motorcycle, a colour T.V. and a refrigerator and when Geeta Devi objected to the same she was tortured and assaulted. It was also alleged that Binod Singh, the brother of the petitioner herein had married thrice only to obtain dowry. It has also been alleged that on 27.7.2001 Navin and his brother Binod assaulted Geeta, snatched her articles and left her and the minor daughter at Rajarani Pond and went away. Subsequently, one Rajendra Yadav brought Geeta and her daughter to the complainants house. It is said that the complainant made several efforts to persuade Sohan Singh, the father of the petitioner, to take back Geeta to the marital home but on 18.3.2002 both Sohan and Navin categorically refused to take Geeta back to the marital home unless the demand made was fulfilled. The complainant further stated that he had learnt from his daughter that Navin was a characterless person. 3. The complainant further stated that he had learnt from his daughter that Navin was a characterless person. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the evidence before charge in the aforesaid complaint case the complainant had admitted that Navin had filed Complaint Case No. 573(C) of 2001 against him, Geeta Devi and his son, Awadh Kishore Singh wherein Geeta Devi had admitted in her evidence that she also wants divorce from her husband and it was only on the basis thereof that the petitioner herein had filed the petition for his discharge from the complaint case taking the additional ground that the petitioner had filed Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 52 of 2002 for dissolution of marriage with Geeta Devi and Geeta Devi had filed her written statement wherein she had admitted that she also wanted the marriage to be dissolved. It has further been submitted that in the aforesaid Matrimonial Suit decree of divorce has already been granted by order dated 17.12.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge-VII, Munger. The learned counsel for the petitioner further sought to submit that whereas in the instant complaint petition the last date of occurrence is stated as 27.7.2001, yet the instant case was not filed till 3.4.2002 and there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the complaint petition and presumably it appears to be a counter blast to the Complaint Case No. 573(C) of 2001 and receipt of notice of the said case. 4. Admittedly, both in the complaint case filed by the petitioner as also in the Matrimonal Suit Geeta Devi had admitted that she wanted the divorce and in fact the divorce had been granted by a competent court. It further appears that the materials available on the record of the case do not indicate that the victim lady had levelled any allegation or reiterated accusation made in the complaint petition nor she had made any complaint of the torture and cruelty that she had allegedly faced at the hands of the accused in her written statement filed in the Title (Matrimonial) Suit. 5. 5. When the wife Geeta Devi was agreeable to a divorce and had pleaded the same both in the complaint petition filed by her husband as also in the matrimonial suit and when a decree of divorce had already been granted by a competent court, the court ought to have taken these matters under consideration while entertaining the petition for discharge. These apparently were cogent grounds for discharge. The court also ought to have given a thought to the delay in lodging the complaint petition and that too by the father of Geeta and not by the victim herself. 6. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for discharge. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate as also of the revisional court are quashed and the application is allowed.