Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 713 (PAT)

Laxmi Rani Kapoor v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-09

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. This is the sordid and pathetic saga of a hapless divorcee wife, who notwithstanding having secured a decree of divorce from the Family Court, Patna in the year 2000, is being sought to be persecuted with ruthless ferocity by means of dragging her into a whirlpool of criminal litigation by her impudent Ex-husband. 2. Cr. Misc. No. 42530 of 2006 is for quashing of the order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judcicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint Case No. 1063(C)/2005, whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341,504, 506, 379/34 IPC. 3. Cr. Misc. No. 42531 of 2006 is for quashing of the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint Case No. 2625(C) of 2005, whereunder cognizance has been taken against her and her father under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC. 4. Since the parties in both the cases are common and the impugned orders, the quashing whereof are prayed for, arises out of complaint cases lodged by the Ex-husband both the cases have been taken up together and having been heard together is being disposed of by the common judgment. 5. Briefly stated the complainants case in Cr. Misc. No. 42530 of 2006 is that apart from the case of dissolution of marriage in the year 2000 before the Family Court, petitioner Laxmi Rani Kapoor had also lodged a complaint case against the complainant and his family members for dowry which resulted in conviction and appeal there against was pending before the Sessions Court, Patna. It is also said that since the amount of alimony had not been settled in the matrimonial suit the said Laxmi Rani Kapoor had filed another suit for fixing permanent alimony which is pending before the Family Court, Patna. It is alleged that on 2.4.2005 the date fixed in Cr. It is also said that since the amount of alimony had not been settled in the matrimonial suit the said Laxmi Rani Kapoor had filed another suit for fixing permanent alimony which is pending before the Family Court, Patna. It is alleged that on 2.4.2005 the date fixed in Cr. Appeal when the complainant Ex-husband presented himself in Court, Laxmi Rani took an adjournment on the plea that the revision was pending before the High Court, whereupon an adjournment was granted and thereafter when the Ex-husband came out from the Court room, Laxmi Rani alongwith some unknown persons started abusing him and also threatened him with dire consequences and again on 11.4.2005 when the Ex-husband came to the Civil Court, after doing Pairvi in both the cases and was leaving the premises at around 4.45 P.M. and enroute to his house reached a little ahead of Ganga Mahal Apartments on Judges Court Road, Laxmi Rani, her father and three unknown youngsters came on motorcycle and surrounded him and Laxmi Rani started abusing the Ex-husband and when he protested the Ex-wife turned violent and threatened that if Rs. 25,00,000.00 by way of alimony was not arranged for, he would have to face dire consequences to which her father added fuel by instigating the unknown persons, whereupon they caught hold of his collar and threatened him at the point of pistol to arrange. Rs. 25,00,000.00 failing which he would be done away with. It is further alleged that Laxmi Rani and her father kept instigating the unknown persons to break his limbs whereupon one of the unknown persons picked up Rs.1500/-from his pocket and snatched his wrist watch and when the complainant raised cries of alarm Laxmi Rani and her accomplices fled after advancing threats. It is said that when the complainant went to lodge a case before the Pirbahore Police Station he was advised to file a complaint. 6. So far as the complainants story in respect of Cr. Misc. It is said that when the complainant went to lodge a case before the Pirbahore Police Station he was advised to file a complaint. 6. So far as the complainants story in respect of Cr. Misc. No. 42531 of 2006 is concerned following the decree of divorce, Laxmi Rani contested the case in the Hon ble High Court by way of M.A. No. 587 of 2000 primarily for permanent alimony under Sec.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said case was remanded back to the Family Court, Patna for hearing on the point of permanent alimony and following the remand the Family Court directed both the parties to file their evidence on affidavit in accordance with law. It is said that in course of evidence the complainant detected that Laxmi Rani had given statement on affidavit in her evidence regarding two policies numbers existing in the name of the complainant in which the name of the nominee was S. Ambastha and her relationship with policy holder was husband and wife. It is further said that he had always been denying the fact that there had been no such policies and they do not stand in his name and he is not the holder or investor in the said policies and it would be evident from a perusal of those policies that they do not belong to the complainant as the date of birth endorsed therein are different and that the complainant had never been a resident at the address given in those policies. It has further been stated that Laxmi Rani at the instigation of her father had filed Khajekala P.S. Case No. 76 of 1995 in which the complainaint and others were convicted and that she had filed another case being Complaint Case No. 646(C) of 2005, which is pending for trial. It has been alleged that Laxmi Rani in a calculated manner to harass the complainant had also laid a false claim for permanent alimony had produced false and frivolous documents of the LIC in the name of complainant knowing fully well that it was not a genuine document and those fraudulent documents were produced in a proceeding in a Court in support of her false claim. It was also alleged that Laxmi Rani has given false statement on affidavit about the said LIC policies in question and from order of the Family Court dated 20.8.2005 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 28 of 1996 in a proceeding under Sec.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it would appear that the finding of the learned Court was based on those false and forged documents produced by Laxmi Rani, whereby the complainant had been out to wrongful loss and Laxmi Rani had obtained wrongful gain for herself. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner Laxmi Rani Kapoor in both cases that her Ex-husband is in the habit of bringing frivolous litigations against her which is apparent from the fact that the complainant earlier had got filed complaint case at Purnea wherein cognizance has been taken and the same was quashed by order of the Hon ble Court dated 7.9.2000 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9807 of 1997. From perusal of the said judgment it would appear that the complaint had been filed by one Chandranan Prasad, Advocate practicing at Purnea, the father-in-law of one Arpana @ Munni who was the sister-in-law of Laxmi Rani. It has further been submitted that the evil design of the complainant can be gauged from perusal of complaint case no. 646(C) of 2005 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna wherein it has been established that the complainant alongwith other co-accused and a suspended Sub Inspector of Police forged a police report which had been submitted to the learned Court as also to the Hon ble Court which not only was for the purposes of misleading the Court but was also a reminiscence of the evil design of the Ex-husband. 8. was further submitted that the complaint case no. 1063(C) of 2005 had been lodged on 13.4.2005 as a counter blast to her complaint case filed on 11.3.2005 with sole intention to pressurise the petitioner from withdrawing her claim for legal dues. It has finally been submitted that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed and tormented by her Ex-husband by means of filing of complaint cases at regular intervals. 9. So far as Cr. Misc. It has finally been submitted that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed and tormented by her Ex-husband by means of filing of complaint cases at regular intervals. 9. So far as Cr. Misc. No. 42531 of 2006 is concerned the allegation is of the wife dishonestly using as and genuine any document which she knows to be a forged document with the intention that the forged document shall be used for the purposes of cheating and the Court below has taken cognizance under Sections 420, 468,471 and 120(B) IPC. However, the document had been filed before the Family Court and as per the assertions of the complainant the Family Court had placed reliance on those documents to pass an order in favour of Laxmi Rani which would mean that the plea of the documents being forged was not accepted by the Family Court. The complainant has not challenged the order of the Family Court based on forged and fraudulent documents before a superior forum. Now he cannot come forward and file a complaint case saying that the documents filed before the Family Court were forged and fabricated documents. That apart had the plea of forged and fabricated documents been accepted by the Court, it was for the Court below to file a complaint. 10. It is by now well settled that Sec.195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. 1973 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in Sec. 463 IPC or punishable under Sections 471,475 or 476 IPC when such offence is alleged to have been committed in a proceeding in Court. Thus, Court can take cognizance of those offences only when the complaint is in writing filed by the Court or some other Court to which the Court is Subordinate, before which the documents in question is found to be forged one and the accused before that Court are found to have committed any offence. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 2625(C) of 2005 does not appear to be justified and needs to be quashed. 12. So far as Cr. Misc. No. 42530 of 2006 is concerned the complaint petition appears to suffer from inherent improbabilities and is malicious and frivolous. The story propounded by the complainant Ex-husband appears to be more of a fairy rather than a real one. 12. So far as Cr. Misc. No. 42530 of 2006 is concerned the complaint petition appears to suffer from inherent improbabilities and is malicious and frivolous. The story propounded by the complainant Ex-husband appears to be more of a fairy rather than a real one. To prosecute the petitioner herein on the basis of such story would be an abuse of the process of the Court, regard being had to the background of multifarious litigations between the parties. 13. In the result both the applications succeed and the impugned order dated 21.5.2005 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42530 of 2006 by Chief Judicial Magistrate Patna, and the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42531 of 2006 both passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna are quashed.