Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 532 (PAT)

Kumar Dinkar Mohan v. State of Bihar

2009-04-02

body2009
ORDER 1. The five FIR named accused of Darbhanga Sadar P.S. Case No. 126 of 2005 have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 8.6.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A and 494/34 IPC. 2 It appears that one Nageshwar Paswan, impleaded herein as O.P. No.3 submitted a written report on 28.5.2005 alleging inter alia the commission of offences under Sections 498A, 384 and 494/34 IPC at the hands of accused during the period spread over a period between 7.6.2003 and 28.5.2005. According to the assertions made in the written report, his daughter Pushpalata Kumari was married to petitioner No. 1 Kumar Dinkar Mohan on 6.6.2003 and thereafter the accused persons started demanding a sum of rupees two lacs for repayment of the loan which they had taken for purchase of Marshal jeep and non-fulfillment of the demand resulted in Pushpalata being subjected to cruelty and torture. It is also alleged that a panchayati was arranged on 8.9.2003 wherein the husband of the victim girl and his father accepted their mistakes and promised to take back Pushpalata and keep her with all dignity and honour. It is said that an agreement in this regard was also prepared on stamp paper. It is further alleged that subsequently the accused persons failed to abide by the terms of the agreement and they deserted the victim girl Pushpalata. The informant is said to have visited the house of the accused on 28.5.2005 to reason with them but the accused allegedly declined to entertain him. It is stated that on inquiry being made from the neighbours, it transpired that petitioner No.1, Kumar Dinkar Mohan, during the lifetime of his first wife had contacted a second marriage in the night intervening 27/28.5.2005 on the basis of the aforesaid written statement Sadar P.S. Case No. 126 of 2005 was registered under Sections 498A, 384, 494/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It further transpires that Pushpalata Kumari impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, had herself filed a complaint case bearing No. 1034(C) of 2004 on 2.9.2004 wherein all the accused of the instant case have been impleaded as accused. 3. It further transpires that Pushpalata Kumari impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, had herself filed a complaint case bearing No. 1034(C) of 2004 on 2.9.2004 wherein all the accused of the instant case have been impleaded as accused. In the said complaint it has been alleged that after solemnization of the marriage on 6.6.2003 her husband and family members initially treated her with dignity and honour but subsequently they started demanding a sum of rupees two lacs which she was asked to bring from her father to enable her husband to get a Government job. It is said that on the complainant narrating these facts to her father he provided the sum of rupees two lacs but the complainant subsequently realized that the money had been taken on a false pretext. It is also alleged that the accused persons subsequently asked the complainant to demand a further sum of rupees one lac from her father to enable her husband to start a suitable business, which she refused to abide by in view of the earlier incident. Her refusal resulted in her being subjected to cruelty and torture and she was eventually ousted from the matrimonial home. However, subsequently at the intervention of well wishers an agreement was prepared wherein the father-in-law had assured that his son would bring back his wife after sometime but the assurance in the agreement was never complied with and when request was made for compliance thereof they misbehaved with her father and other relatives who had gone to the village with the request. 4. It appears that following inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, took cognizance of offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC as also Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that filing of the two cases, the police case at the instance of the father and the complaint case at the instance of the victim girl were an abuse of the process of the Court and there was absolutely no truth in the allegations made in the two cases. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that filing of the two cases, the police case at the instance of the father and the complaint case at the instance of the victim girl were an abuse of the process of the Court and there was absolutely no truth in the allegations made in the two cases. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that there had been a problem of compatibility in the conjugal life and as such a panchayati was held whereafter negotiation with the parties the arbitrators came to the conclusion on 10.6.2004 that the marriage between the parties cannot survive and hence the parties agreed to break the relationship. They also agreed to return the articles taken from each other and in keeping with the agreement three bank drafts of rupees fifty thousands each were given to the informant by the petitioner on 9.6.2004 and another bank draft of rupees forty thousand was handed over on 10.6.2004. All the bank drafts are said to have been issued from the Beta Chowk Branch of Central Bank of India, Darbhanga. The allegations made in the police case as also the complaint case of Pushpalata being subjected to torture in the matrimonial home has been denied more so when the FIR of the police case discloses that the daughter of the informant was ousted from matrimonial home prior to 2.9.2004 and she was never brought back thereafter. 6. Admittedly two cases have been filed by the two different persons, the only common factor being that the complainant of complaint case No. 1034(C) of 2004 happened to be the daughter of the informant of Darbhanga (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 126 of 2005 and the allegation of the complainant being a victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, whereas the complaint case was filed in 2004, the police case was registered in 2005 and in the interregnum the husband of the complainant is said to have contacted a second marriage giving rise to an offence under Section 494 IPC which finds place in the police case. However, whereas the complaint case was filed in 2004, the police case was registered in 2005 and in the interregnum the husband of the complainant is said to have contacted a second marriage giving rise to an offence under Section 494 IPC which finds place in the police case. Therefore, for all practical purposes, although there appears similarity in the two cases in respect of commission of certain offence, the police case makes out a clear case of the commission of a further distinct offence for which cognizance has been taken. 7. In that view of the matter I find no apparent illegality in the impugned order and the petitioners cannot take the plea of double jeopardy. 8. In the result there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, it will only be appropriate for both the cases to be taken up together and be heard by the same court.