IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11427 of 2005 ANJANI KUMAR, Son of Sri Sitaram Singh, R/o village Parihara, P.S. Obra, District Aurangabad ….. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dharamshila Devi, D/o Shiv Varan Singh, R/o village Ari, P.S. Obra District Aurangabad. ….. Opp. Party ----------- For the petitioner : M/s Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advovate Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singh & Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : None The petitioner, one of the named accused of Complaint Case No. 422 of 2003 has preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 21.4.2004 passed therein by Sri Alok Raj, Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad, whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance under sections 323 and 441 IPC against all the accused and under section 498A IPC against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the complainant, Dharam Sheela Devi impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2. The complainant wife filed the complaint on 19.5.2003 inter alia stating that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 8.5.1984 and gauna was performed in 1988. It is said that at the relevant time the petitioner was a student and after completion of his education made unsuccessful attempts to procure service whereupon on the instigation of the in-laws he demanded a sum of Rs. one lac from the parents of the complainant and on refusal to meet the demand she was tortured and assaulted and then sent back - 2 - to the parental home after all her belongings including ornaments were allegedly confiscated by the accused persons. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the very initial stage the complainant was suffering from mental disease and gynecological problems for which she was treated by the doctors of the P.M.C.H, Patna and RIMPASS at Ranchi and notwithstanding the huge expenditure incurred over the treatment there was no improvement in her condition and she became a source of trouble for the whole family in the matrimonial house by her insane acts. She was also unable to conceive and the doctors were of the opinion that she would not be able to conceive. On the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner filed Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 368 of 2002 in the Court of the Principle Judge, Family Court, Patna, on 23.12.2002 and it was by way of a counter blast to the filing of the divorce case that the complainant’s case came to be filed on 19.5.2003 to reek vengence and harass the family members of the petitioner and also to humiliate them. A grievance was also raised against the Court taking cognizance since it had ignored to consider the long delay in filing the complaint. I have had the occasion to peruse the complaint petition and the formal FIR drawn up on the basis thereof and it appears that for occurrences which are said to have taken place on 8.5.1984 and 6.11.2002 the complaint was sought to be filed only on 19.5.2003 for which there is no explanation and that too after the divorce case had been filed by the husband petitioner on 23.12.2003 - 3 - wherein the respondent wife had appeared. The question which falls for consideration is whether the complaint filed by O.P. No. 2 is a bona fide or a malafide one or vexatious so as to cause harassment. The allegation is that she had been subjected to torture from 8.5.1984 i.e. the day of marriage but in the complaint petition itself she mentions that the gauna was performed in 1988. Then again if she was being tortured from May 1984 then why she had to wait till the filing of the matrimonial suit against her and her appearance therein to file the complaint. No specific dates, nature and manner of the assault or torture have been disclosed and even ouster from the matrimonial home has been taken note of very lightly. To my mind it appears that the present complaint has been filed against the petitioner and others only as a counter blast to the divorce case filed by the petitioner against her so as to drag them into unnecessary litigation and to coerce them to take her back into the marital home. O.P.No. 2 the complainant was duly noticed and the process server, as it appears, reported that the father of the O.P. no. 2 had informed him that she had since contacted a second marriage and was living with her second husband at the present matrimonial home. Of course the date of the second marriage has not been divulged but in fact it is a pointer that the present complaint petition was vexatious and an effort to reek vengence for having filed the divorce case. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the - 4 - subsequent developments taking place, no gainful purpose will be served by keeping this criminal proceeding pending in the court below. The aforesaid criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 422 of 2003 is accordingly quashed in its entirety and the application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 3rd of March , 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)