Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14298 of 2011 ====================================================== Devendra Goswami @ Devendra Giri Goswami, son of Ram Kishun Giri Goswami, resident of Mohalla-Santhali, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Babita Devi, daughter of late Upendra Giri Goswami, resident of Village- Aliganj, P.S. Chandradeep, District-Jamui (Bihar) .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Utsav Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhimanayu Sharma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 7 17-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.5.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.1022 C of 2007 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui by which he has taken cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. From the record it appears that the marriage was solemnized on 11.6.2003 according to Hindu rites and from the wedlock they were blessed with two children. It has further been alleged that after some Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14298 of 2011 (7) dt.17-12-2012 2 time the situation turned sour as accused persons were demanding articles such as Godrej Almirah, Refrigerator, Bed and Rs.50,000/-. It has further been alleged even the mother-in-law tried to kill the infant son of opposite party no.2 by sprinkling Kerosene oil and trying to throw him in the burning fire (Borsi). It has further been alleged that on 23.4.2007 all members of the in-laws with an intention to kill locked her in the room and sprinkled kerosene oil on her body with intention to torch the complainant and when they were trying to burn her alive then on the cry of opposite party no.2 neighbours interfered and saved her life. It has further been alleged that behaviour of the husband side was torturous and later on opposite party no.2 made complaint to Jasidih Police station then the husband (the petitioner) had executed a bond dated 31.4.2007 to keep opposite party no.2 in proper security and dignity. In spite of the above bond allegation has been made that in-laws snatched all the articles of opposite party no.2 worth Rs.50,000/- and expelled her from the house. Even after notices on two occasions the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14298 of 2011 (7) dt.17-12-2012 3 opposite party no.2 did not turn up to place her grievance before this Court. In this view of the matter, this Court has no other alternative but to pass the order on the basis of the assistance given by the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits fact are otherwise, as it is the opposite party no.2 who had acted in torturous manner and in support of his contention he has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 to the petition which is Sanha lodged by opposite party no.2 where statement has been recorded that she left her matrimonial house of her own volition along with her younger son. He has drawn attention to the photocopy of the photographs to show, she after leaving the house have been living with other person. These disputed matters cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The veracity of the aforesaid averment can be tested at the trial stage. Hence for the present this Court holds, the present application has no merit, with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and complete the same without any delay as more than five years have already passed it will be appropriate for the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14298 of 2011 (7) dt.17-12-2012 4 ends of justice to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation this application is dismissed. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.