Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 689 (PAT)

Changuri Sah v. State of Bihar

2013-06-25

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. 2. No one appears on behalf of the Petitioner No. 1. 3. In view of the order dated 27.9.2012, the application against the Petitioner No. 1 namely, Changuri Sah, has become infructuous since he died during the pendency of the application. 4. The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 23.7.1998 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia, has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 125 of 1998. 5. The case of the Complainant is that his son was married with the Petitioner No. 2 in the year 1994 when a large numbers of gifts were given to her. After the marriage, the Petitioner No. 2 insisted that the son of the Complainant reside at her Naihar but he did not accede to such demands. On 18.5.1998 at 3.30 P.M. allegedly, the Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 along with some unknown persons came and took away the Petitioner No. 2 along with certain articles as also the Scooter belonging to her son. They also assaulted the Complainant. 6. The fact of the matter is that the Petitioner No. 2 was married with the son of the Complainant in the year 1994 but on account of torture having been meted out to her, she filed Complaint Case No. 749 of 1998 against her in-laws. The same was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and a substantive Police Case registered as Katihar P.S. Case No. 228 of 1998 on 1.5.98. The Petitioner No. 2 also filed a Maintenance Case No. 39 of 1998 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, submission is that after the Petitioner No. 2 filed a Complaint, the present malicious Complaint was filed by her mother-in-law on 30.5.1998. 7. It has been submitted that in the background facts of the case, evidently, the present case has been filed as a backlash to the prosecution launched by the Petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, in the said background, the present Complaint is false and frivolous. 8. Having gone through the facts of the case, I am inclined to conclude that the present proceeding is an abuse of the process of Court and is fit to be set aside. 9. 8. Having gone through the facts of the case, I am inclined to conclude that the present proceeding is an abuse of the process of Court and is fit to be set aside. 9. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 23.7.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia, in Complaint Case No. 125 of 1998 is hereby quashed. Application allowed.