Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1629 (PAT)

Manohar Prasad v. State of Bihar

2012-12-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2012
JUDGMENT No one appears on behalf of the private Opposite Party despite repeated calls. 2. The Petitioners seek quashing of entire proceeding including the order dated 8.8.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Sirdala P.S. case No.34 of 2010, by which he has taken cognizance differing with the final report. 3. The petitioners happen to be the elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant. 4. The case of the informant is that she was married to Pawan Kumar on 26.5.2003 but after marriage she was taunted for having not brought sufficient dowry and also insulted her. She stated that the Petitioners used to stay at Ranchi, where they invited the informant and her husband where the Petitioner No.1 is supposed to have assaulted her along with her husband on 24.12.2003. Later on in Bhatinda her husband used to administer her doubtful medicines, due to which she became ill. In March, 2008, she came to live with her husband at Noida but again she was tortured. On 8.5.2008 and 9.5.2008 some meetings were held but again she was abused. During Diwali time in the year 2008 after having talked with the present Petitioners, her husband again assaulted her when she got herself treated at Bhel Health Centre, Noida. Subsequently again her husband started demanding money for buying a flat on the instigation of the rest of the in-laws and threatened her of dire consequences. She was also severely injured on account of the assault by her husband. Her father lost his life on account of this tension. She was then left her in a maternal home with a warning that unless 3 lacs was paid she would not be taken to her matrimonial home. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the accepted version is that the Petitioners were living in Ranchi whereas the spouses were living in Delhi or Bhatinda. The specific overt act has been alleged to the Petitioners of the year 2003 and it does not stand to reason that the complaint in this regard would be made after seven years. It is in this background that the Petitioners submit that the allegations are completely untrustworthy. The specific overt act has been alleged to the Petitioners of the year 2003 and it does not stand to reason that the complaint in this regard would be made after seven years. It is in this background that the Petitioners submit that the allegations are completely untrustworthy. The further submission is that the case of three family members has been quashed by this Court by order dated 5.4.2012 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.32030 of 2011 on the plea that the Magistrate has not assigned any reason for disagreeing with the final report. 6. In view of such, the application stands allowed and the proceeding so far as it relates to the Petitioners including the order dated 8.8.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in Sirdala P.S. case No.34 of 2010 is hereby quashed.