Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1170 (PAT)

Satya Naraian v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-07

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24.7.1999 passed by Sri P. K. Sharan, Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai Camp at Samastipur in Angarghat P. S. Case No.25 of 1997, T. R. No.14 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition, which was filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Short fact of the case is that an F. I. R. vide Angarghat P. S. Case No.25 of 1997 was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of Opp. Party No.2 Dr. Amita Kumari. It was alleged by the informant that she was married with Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey in the month of March, 1991 and after the marriage was solemnized, the in-laws family as well as her husband started torturing her with a view to extract dowry. It was also disclosed in the F. I. R. that she got information that on the date of filing of the F. I. R. , her husband Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey was going to solemnize second marriage during her life time with the daughter of this petitioner. Accordingly the F. I. R. was lodged for the offences under Sections 498a, 504/34, 120b of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After registering the F. I. R. , the case was investigated and thereafter on 29.10.1997 a chargesheet was submitted against accused persons including the present petitioner for the offences under Sec.498a, 494,323,504, 467, 469, 471, 120b and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge, which was rejected by the impugned order i. e. order dated 24.7.1999. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Sri Chaudhary Shyam Nandan , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had got no role to play in the alleged offences. He submits that the petitioner was only father of the second wife of accused Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the date of solemnization of marriage of daughter of the petitioner with Dr. He submits that the petitioner was only father of the second wife of accused Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the date of solemnization of marriage of daughter of the petitioner with Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey, who was the husband of Opp. Party no.2, there was a Judgment and decree of divorce of marriage in between Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey and opp. Party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is photo copy of typed copy of the petition vide Matrimonial ( Divorce) Case No.7 of 1996, which was filed by Opp. Party No.2 for dissolution of her marriage with Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey. Learned counsel has also referred to paragraph nos.4,8 and 14 of the petition , in which it was disclosed by Opp. Party no.2 that she was residing with one Dr. Nomani , who was studying along with her , while she was a medical student. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure-3 to the petition, which is a photo copy of the certified copy of the Judgment dated 26.4.1997 passed in Matrimonial Case No.32 of 1996. By the said Judgment and decree, the marriage of Opp. Party no.2 with Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey was dissolved. Accordingly, he submits that at least on the date of marriage of his daughter with Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey, there was no relation of husband and wife with Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey and Opp. Party no.2. Accordingly, if it is assumed that the petitioner participated in the marriage of his daughter with Dr. Amlendu Kumar Pandey , no offence under Sec.120b, read with Sec.494 of the Indian Penal Code can be applicable against this petitioner. So far as application of other Sections, particularly Sec.498 A of the Indian Penal Code, he argues that even in the F. I. R. , there is no allegation in respect of demand of dowry against the petitioner. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order whereby the discharge petition was rejected. 4. In this case, Sri Rama Kant Sharma learned Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of Opp. Party no.2. He has argued that ex parte decree of divorce was obtained by committing fraud and this petitioner, who was an Advocate, had also participated in the said occurrence. 4. In this case, Sri Rama Kant Sharma learned Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of Opp. Party no.2. He has argued that ex parte decree of divorce was obtained by committing fraud and this petitioner, who was an Advocate, had also participated in the said occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has actively played the role in obtaining ex parte decree of divorce, which was subsequently set aside vide Misc. No.34 of 1997 on 2.5.2000 and against the order dated 2.5.2000, a Civil Revision was preferred by which ex party Judgment and decree was set aside. Thereafter, First Appeal was preferred. The order of setting aside the ex parte Judgment and Decree is under challenge. 5. After hearing the parties and examining the record, I am of the view that it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Whatever the pleas, which have been taken before this Court, cannot be entertained by this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points at the defence stage during the trial. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 7. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stands automatically vacated. 8. In this case earlier by order dated 21.2.2000, while issuing notice to Opp. Party no.2 and directing for stay of the further proceeding in Angarghat P. S. Case No.25 of 1997 (T. S. No.14 of 1999), this Court had called for lower court record. The same has been received and lying with the records of the present case.9. Office is directed to remit back the lower court records along with the copy of the order to the court below forthwith.