Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1196 (PAT)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

2013-09-30

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - A supplementary affidavit has been filed also impugning the order of cognizance dated 13.6.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 3074 of 2004 (Trial No. 3308 of 2005/1006 of 2013). 2. The case of the complainant is that on the date of occurrence when she was returning with her mother, the accused persons surrounded her and attempted to lift her. When they resisted they were assaulted and also disrobed. The reason for the occurrence is that the accused persons after hiding the factum of previous marriage were contracting marriages for ends of dowry and starting to torture for non-fulfilment of the same. She also stated that she had filed a proceeding for maintenance which was pending. 3. It appears that petitioner No.1 was forcibly married with the opposite party No.2 on 12.3.2001. In April 2001 he filed Matrimonial Case No. 143 of 2001 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna seeking divorce in which notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2 and on receipt of notice she filed the present complaint on 28.12.2004. Earlier she had filed Town P.S. Case No. 19 of 2002 under Section 498-A, IPC in which charge-sheet was submitted as against the petitioner No. 1 only. The petitioner No.1 also filed Complaint Case No. 1275(c) of 2001 and Complaint Case No. 1276(c) of 2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the family members of the complainant. 4. The submission is that it is on account of this dispute that the present complaint has been filed with trumped up chargers in order to further harass the petitioners. Moreover the allegations in the complaint petition appear to be absurd and unbelievable. 5. Notices had been issued to the opposite party No.2. but despite service of notice she has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. Even though initially the application had been filed for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205. Cr PC but considering the frivolous nature of the complaint a supplementary affidavit was filed to satisfy this Court that the continuance of the present proceeding would be gross abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Having gone through the complaint petition. 6. Even though initially the application had been filed for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205. Cr PC but considering the frivolous nature of the complaint a supplementary affidavit was filed to satisfy this Court that the continuance of the present proceeding would be gross abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Having gone through the complaint petition. I am inclined to agree with the submission raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners and hence the application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 13.6.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 3074 of 2004 (Trial No. 3308 of 2005/1006 of 2013) is hereby set aside. Application allowed.