Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 810 (PAT)

Animesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar

2013-07-15

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
ORDER 1. The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 19.01.2009 passed in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 494 of 2005 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which he has refused to discharge the Petitioners. They also seek quashing of the order dated 20.04.2009 by which charges have been framed against the Petitioners. 2. The case of the informant is that she was married with Petitioner No.1 on 16.01.2005 at which stage bridegroom party had stated that her husband was working as a legal advisor in WIPRO after passing out L.L.B. on a salary of Rs.25,000/-. However, she later learnt that her husband was sitting idle after doing law from R.P.S. College, Patna. She stayed with her in-laws about ten days and returned to her parent’s house. When she went back to in-laws’ house on 20.03.2005 she was pressurized to pay another two lacs from her father to start a business. She was also variously tortured by her in-laws whereafter she left her in-laws’ house. It is on this allegation the first information report was instituted on 21.06.2005. 3. It has been submitted that in fact the bride party had approached the Petitioners after matrimonial advertisement which was published in the Hindustan Times edition dated 25.07.2004 wherein it has been categorically stated that the Petitioner No.1 was a High Court lawyer. There was no question of false representation with regard to status of employment. Fact of the matter is when the informant went to the in-laws house she maligned her husband was a struggling lawyer. This fact was unacceptable to her. 4. It appears Petitioners were also threatened on account of which an informatory petition was filed before the C.J.M. Patna. Subsequently, on 30.05.2005 the husband also filed an application for the annulment of his marriage with the informant which was registered as Matrimonial Miscellaneous Case no. 181 of 2005. The petitioner No.2 also filed a Complaint Case No. 1624 of 2005 on 07.06.2005 against the family members of the informant. The present first information report dated 21.06.05 is thus a counter blast of the above litigations. 5. On the last occasion, notices were issued to O.P. No.2 but despite receipt of notice by the mother of O.P. No.2 she has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. The present first information report dated 21.06.05 is thus a counter blast of the above litigations. 5. On the last occasion, notices were issued to O.P. No.2 but despite receipt of notice by the mother of O.P. No.2 she has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. Considering the background facts of the case, I am of the opinion the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the orders dated 19.01.2009 & 20.04.2009 passed in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 494 of 2005 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna is hereby quashed.