Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 485 (PAT)

Rina Devi v. State Of Bihar

2008-03-12

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. All these petitioners who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 673(C)/2006 have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including order dated 18.12.2006 passed therein by Sri Rajendra Das, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498, 504 and 147 I.P.C. against the petitioners. 2. The complainant, Shyam Sundar Tiwary, impleaded as O.P. No. 2, herein, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia stating that his marriage with Rina Devi was solemnized on 21.5.2004 according to Hindu customs and religious rites at Dumka, whereafter the bride came to the Sasural and stayed there for about 18 days, whereafter she went back to her Naihar. It is said that after six months she returned from her Naihar and stayed for a month whereafter her brother came to take back Rina Devi to the Naihar on the pretext of the mother being seriousty ill and she was permitted to go in the month of March 2005. It is said that the complainant used to visit his Sasural of and on and notwithstanding his pleadings to perform the bidai so that she could be taken back to the Sasural it was never performed. Eventually on 17.1.2006 the complainant sent a legal notice requesting for the bidai of Rina Devi, which was not responded. It is alleged that it was learnt that Rina Devi had illicit relationship with her Bahnoi, Vinay Kumar Tiwary, an Advocate in the Dumka Court and. that Rina Devi was being kept by him with ulterior motive. It is further alleged that on 6.8.2006 the complainant went again to fetch his wife but she was not permitted to come and it was given out that he would have to provide her with maintenance. It has been claimed by the complainant that his wife had been wrongly enticed away. It was also alleged that the complainant was sanguine that his wife had been taken away by her brother on 23.3.2005 under false assertions of their mother being ill. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent, have committed no offence whatsoever and the allegations levelled against them are false, concocted and far from the truth. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that Rina Devi petitioner no. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent, have committed no offence whatsoever and the allegations levelled against them are false, concocted and far from the truth. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that Rina Devi petitioner no. 1 had filed PCR Case No. 42/2006 under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the complainant of this case and others regarding demand of dowry and torture, both mental and physical, and cognizance was taken against the complainant and all his family members. That apart she had also filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the learned Presiding Judge, Family Court at Dumka. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to point out that trial in the PCR Case No. 42/2006 had already begun in which ail the accused persons have been summoned. It has also been submitted that the complainant of this case as also his family members consequently keep threatening the petitioners to kill them if P.C.R. No. 42/2006 and Misc. Case No. 29/2006 were not withdrawn and a petition to this effect was filed in Court on 21.12.2006. 4. The complainant, it is said, has field a Matrimonial Case No. 12/2006 on 7.9.2006 in Jamui Court wherein his family members are being threatened by the petitioners with dire consequences if they ever visit the Court premises to make pairavi in the matrimonial case. It has also been submitted that the complainant and in-laws of the petitioner no. 1 had filed the instant case just to save their own skin from the two cases preferred by petitioner no. 1 against them and was nothing more than a counter blast to the two cases filed by the petitioner no. 1 herein. The petitioner no. 1 had also filed an Informatory Petition No. 158/2006 in the Town P.S. Dumka regarding the threats advanced by the complainant and his family members and another informatory petition in that regard was also filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, in which police after investigation/ inquiry gave its report supporting the case of the petitioner no. 1. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the petitioner no. 1. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the petitioner no. 1 had filed a Transfer Petition (C) No. (S) 109/2007 before the Hon ble Supreme Court for transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 12/2006 from Jamui to Dumka and the Apex Court by order dated 23.2.2007 had issued notice to the complainant herein and stayed further proceedings in the said suit. In the aforesaid premise which was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts and circumstances of the case would reveal that the cognizance taken against the petitioners herein by the learned Judicial Magistrate was without application of mind and without going through the provisions of law and was an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. From what has been stated above it would appear that whereas the instant complaint was filed on 14.8.2006, P.C.R. Case No. 42/2006 was filed on 21.12.2006 which only goes to show that the information regarding the threat by the complainant was filed much after the complaint petition and mention has been made therein that the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as also the allegations of abuse and assault. 7. From what has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners it appears that there is allegation and counter allegations from both sides and involves looking into facts and figures and documents. Since the copies of the petition of the maintenance case and informatory petition are not available on record it is difficult to find out whether they were filed earlier than the instant complaint. That apart all these things appear to be the defence of the petitioners. Moreover it is by now well settled that in a quashing matter the High Court should be loath in looking into facts and figures. 8. In that view of the matter I find no merit in this application which is dismissed.. However, the petitioners are given liberty of raising all these issues at the time of framing of the charges.