Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 72 (PAT)

Pradeep Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-10

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Sri Indrajeet Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J. Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri Mritunjay Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. It appears that the petitioners have questioned the propriety of the order dated 4.11.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. C1158/04 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. It appears that one Shushma Devi, wife of petitioner no. 1, Pradeep Kumar, filed the complaint inter alia alleging that her marriage with petitioner no. 1 was solemnised on 7.5.1989 whereat cash and valuable articles were gifted and after marriage when she entered the marital home she was subjected to torture, mentally and physically, by all the accused persons. In this connection it was specified that the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law had subjected the complainant to cruelty and the mother-in-law had put pressure on her to bring Rs. one lac and the other accused lent their consent to the suggestions. It is said that on 5.1.1995 the complainant gave birth to a daughter and thereafter there was no cessation in the torture and in the meanwhile the husband allegedly developed an illicit relationship with one Nilam Kumari and that also was a cause for the complainant to suffer trauma and cruelty and she was eventually compelled to leave the marital home on 15.1.2003. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely dragged into this unwarranted litigation only to cause harassment to them. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that since the complainant wife had left the marital home of her own accord and had refused to go back notwithstanding several requests in this regard. The husband was compelled to file Divorce Case bearing No. 30/1998 before the learned District Judge, Bhagalpur which was disposed of by Judgment dated 29.1.2005. It is further case of the petitioners that when the matter started going against the complainant in the Divorce case she filed the instant complaint on false averments and concocted story. 5. The husband was compelled to file Divorce Case bearing No. 30/1998 before the learned District Judge, Bhagalpur which was disposed of by Judgment dated 29.1.2005. It is further case of the petitioners that when the matter started going against the complainant in the Divorce case she filed the instant complaint on false averments and concocted story. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission referred to the deposition of P.W. 2, Surendra Narain Choudhary, the uncle of the complainant who has submitted that ever since 1997 his neice has been living in her fathers house. He also refers to the deposition of P.W. 3, Bipin Kumar Choudhary, who happens to be the brother of the complainant has stated that the complainant since from the time of Dushahara 1997 was living with him in his village. Even the complainant in her deposition has stated that she had gone to her marital home and had stayed there 8-10 days whereafter she had left the marital home with her small daughter who was also subjected to cruelty. 6. The learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 the complainant has submitted that it is not a false case and it would be apparent from the statement of the complainant on S.A. as also from the complaint petition itself that on two occasions when she had come into family way she was forced to abort and that apart she was subjected to torture and cruelty both mentally and physically and became unable to bear the trauma and torture any more she was compelled to leave the marital home in 1997 whereafter she has been residing in her make alongwith her daughter. 7. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at the present moment but to give liberty to the petitioners to raise all these issues and show the contradictions in the complaint story and deposition of the witnesses to the court at the time of framing of charge. 8. With the above observations this application is disposed of.