IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12195 of 2007 PRAMOD KUMAR, SON OF DEVENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MIAN CHAK (CHATTI ROAD), P.S.-TOWN- BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJESH KUMAR, SON OF BRAHAMDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF STATION ROAD, NAWADAH, P.S. TOWN, DISTRICT NAWADAH. 3. NAMITA KUMARI @ NAMITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF BRAHAMDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF STATION ROAD, NAWADAH, P.S. TOWN, DISTRICT NAWADAH. --- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 5 29.3.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.3.2006, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in Nawadah Town P.S. Case No. 123 of 2002 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The facts are that the petitioner had filed a case 1315C of 2001 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against his wife who is the sister of the complainant of the present case. Cognizance was taken on 12.2.2002. The reason for filing the case by the husband was that he had come to know that his so called wife was earlier married and without obtaining decree of divorce, and after suppressing this important fact, she entered into a marital relationship with the petitioner. After petitioner got to know that his wife was earlier married, he filed an application before the District Judge, Family Court, Begusarai to declare the marriage solemnized with the petitioner as null and void as the woman was already married to one Ratnesh Kumar Gupta. The matrimonial petition was filed vide Case No. 46 of 2001. After the filing of the case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the matrimonial petition, the present complaint 2 application has been filed by Rajesh Kumar the brother of Namita Kumari @ Namita Devi (O.P. No. 3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the filing of the case is the abuse of the process of law and is malicious. The case was filed only after the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 learnt that the petitioner had filed a case against opposite party no. 3 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the matrimonial case 46 of 2001. Subsequently the marriage was declared null and void. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties submits that the decree and judgment of the matrimonial case 46 of 2001 passed on 18.10.2006 was ex-parte. On perusal of the entire materials and the records of this case as well as the order dated 18.10.2006 it would appear that Namita Kumari @ Namita Devi had filed a criminal case bearing Complaint Case No. 501 of 1993 under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code against her first husband Ratnesh Kumar Gupta. In the said complaint case, Namita Kumari @ Namita Devi examined herself as a witness. The evidence has been exhibited in the matrimonial case. In the deposition she has admitted that she was married to Ratnesh Kumar Gupta on 10.7.1988. Learned counsel for the opposite parties was not able to demonstrate even prima facie before this Court that the opposite party no. 3 had subsequently divorced Ratnesh Kumar Gupta before marrying the present petitioner. The facts and circumstances in this case are very peculiar. Undisputedly Namita Kumari @ Namita Devi was earlier 3 married with Ratnesh Kumar Gupta and her marriage had not been dissolved before marriage to the opposite party no. 2. It also appears that this fact was suppressed from the petitioner and his family members at the time of the marriage and as such it was only when the petitioner got to know of these facts that the problems arose between them and specially because the petitioner filed a criminal and a matrimonial case for holding that the marriage is null and void, in retaliation whereof his wife has filed the present case. As such, in the facts aforesaid, I find that the allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not genuine and the criminal proceedings by the opposite party are by way of a defence and allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of law. In the facts aforesaid, I quash Town P.S. Case No. 123 of 2002 and the order of cognizance dated 8.3.2006. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)