IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23230 of 2007 PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA, S/O GYAN PD. SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-VINWARA MUNGER, P.S. & P.O. VINWARA, MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER, PRESENT ADDRESS QUARTER NO.1-A , STREET NO.10, CHITRANJAN, P.O. & P.S. CHITRANJAN(W.B.) DISTRICT-WARDHWAN, WEST BENGAL. …………………………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ANITA KUMARI @ SANGITA DEVI, W/O PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA, D/O SHREE ROOP SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MOHALLA-ADARSNAGAR SULTANGANJ, P.O. & P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : None. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate. -------------- O R D E R The petitioner, who is one of the four persons against whom cognizance has been taken under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. by order dated 2.9.2002 passed by Miss Saroj Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in connection with Complaint Case No.224 of 2002, has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance. It appears that one Anita Kumari @ Sangita Devi, the complainant, impleaded as O.P. No.2 herein, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein filed the aforesaid complaint on 1.3.2002 inter alia alleging that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner and after some days the accused - 2 - persons started demanding a sum of Rs. one lakh as additional dowry and notwithstanding her father having paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to her father-in-law, the accused persons including the petitioner remained dissatisfied and as a result thereof she was assaulted brutally by them and her status in the matrimonial home was reduced to that of a mere maid servant and she was also asked to clean the toilets. It is said that in October, 2001 the accused persons locked her in a room for three days without any food or water and eventually she was ousted from the matrimonial home and ever since then she has been residing with her parents. All efforts at restoring normalcy and conjugal life ended in failure. It is alleged that the accused persons had also confiscated all her gold and silver jewelry and were using the same and sending of a legal notice evinced no response. Denying the factum of his marriage with the complainant it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was already married from before to one Sarita Kumari whose name stands incorporated in the relevant records of his employer, the Chittranjan Locomotive Workshop, as also in the Railway Journey Free Pass dated 4.12.1999. It has also been submitted that it would be apparent from a reading of the complaint petition that the complainant has been cautious enough not to disclose the date of the alleged marriage although in Misc. Case No.68 of 2005 preferred by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance she had disclosed the date of alleged marriage as 23.1.2000. Even otherwise the said Misc. Case was dismissed by judgment dated 24.1.2007 by the learned - 3 - Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, on the ground that the alleged marriage between the parties had not been proved. The submission is supported by a copy of the judgment of the Principal Judge which has been appended to the petition as Annexure-4. That apart a plea of alibi has been taken by submitting that on the day of alleged marriage and on the days preceding and following thereto he had been on duty from 6.30 A.M. to 11 A.M. and 12.15 P.M. to 3.45 P.M. at Chittranjan and it was humanly impossible to go to Sultanganj to attend the marriage. Be that as it may, the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner unfortunately happens to be his defence and alibi and calls for looking into document which does not fall within the ambit of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. although this appears to be a case for plausible consideration. In the circumstances while granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge, I am constrained to dismiss the application due regard being had to the limited scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 12th of November, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.