Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1167 (PAT)

Pawan Kumar Pawak v. State of Bihar

2013-09-23

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 23.7.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in G.R.No. 98 of 1998 arising out of Raniganj P.S. Case No. 8 of 1998. As also the order dated 7.8.2004 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Araria in Cr. Rev. No. 370 of 1999 by which he has affirmed the said order. 3. The case of the Informant is that she was the wife of Surya Narayan Mandal and was well-known to him since before the marriage in fact they had fallen in love and on his inducement she entered into sexual relation-ship with him. However, the parents did not approve of the marriage so they contracted a marriage against their wishes. She however continued to live in her maternal home. Her in-laws demanded dowry in failure of which they assaulted her and attempted to set her on fire. 4. The petitioners submit that after due investigation final report was submitted in the matter but the case proceeded upon a Protest-cum-Complaint Petition. Fact of the matter is that the informant in her statement under Section 164, Cr PC has stated that she married her husband on 13.8.1997 in a temple. She found out that her husband had run away and when he went to look for him she found out that his brother had instituted a case of kidnapping. From the facts in the First Information Report it is also apparent that the Informant and Surya Narayan Mandal who is not before this Court had been living as husband and wife since before the marriage and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioners demanding dowry for giving sanction to the relationship. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the informant submits that just because final report was submitted in regard to the petitioners they being the relatives of her husband they should be prosecuted. 6. Considering the relation-ship of the petitioners with the Informant and the nature of allegations, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution as against them is gross abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be set aside. 7. 6. Considering the relation-ship of the petitioners with the Informant and the nature of allegations, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution as against them is gross abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be set aside. 7. Hence, the application is allowed the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 23.7.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in G.R.No.98 of 1998 arising out of Raniganj P.S. Case No. 8 of 1998 as also the order dated 7.8.2004 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Araria in Cr. Rev. No. 370 of 1999 is, hereby, set aside so far as the petitioners are concerned. 8. The application stands allowed. Application allowed.