Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 311 (PAT)

Muntahana Parween v. State Of Bihar

2016-03-29

GOPAL PRASAD

body2016
ORDER : Heard. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in a complaint case being C.A. No. 42 of 2014 by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after due enquiry of the complainant and recording the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and recording the statement of the witnesses. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was married with one Md. Mukhtar. After marriage, he went to Rajasthan but did not return. In the meantime, she remain stayed with the father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is further alleged that the accused Md. Ainul (O.P. No. 2) disclosed that in pretext that the husband of the victim send him to bring the victim with the permission of her mother-in-law he took the victim from Rajasthan to Assam. It is alleged that she was confined and raped by Md. Ainul. One day she heard that they were planning to sale out her to others but after request to neighbours informed her maternal grand- father and her mater grand father and three other persons rescued her from the hell and she went to sasural where her husband disclosed that he divorced her earlier an did not permit to live in his house. 4. However, learned Magistrate taking into consideration of the statement of the witnesses that the victim girl remained in the house of her maternal parents. After going through the enquiry, it is found that the neighbor never telephoned her Maternal Grand father nor any information was given and at that time the complainant was in sasural and Md. Mukhtar came and stated that he had given divorce. 5. After going through the enquiry, it is found that the neighbor never telephoned her Maternal Grand father nor any information was given and at that time the complainant was in sasural and Md. Mukhtar came and stated that he had given divorce. 5. The learned Trial Court also taken into consideration to the fact that the complainant stayed in the house with accused persons having resultant to be disheartened of the complainant by her husband of last eight years and hence, I find that while dismissing the complaint, the Court below has considered the aspect of the case and given a reason for dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. and I do not find any merit to interfere with the matter as Section 203 Cr.P.C. provides that if, considering the statements of the complainant and of the witnesses as a result of that, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding which was dismissed the complaint. 6. However, after going through the entire impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate had good reason for dismissing the complaint. I do not see any merit in the petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.