IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33883 of 2008 1. Ms. Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora, D/o Shree Vijay Kumar Arora. 2. Vijay Kumar Arora @ Vijay Kumar, S/o Shri Desh Raj Arora, Both residents of 302, Royal Palace Apartments, Opp.-Agarawal Samaj Hall, Ghurdar Road, Surat, Gujrat. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Raj Barolia, s/o Shri Roshan Lal Barolia, R/o Mohalla Damodarpur, P.S. Kanti, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. …. Opposite Party with Cr.Misc. No.33579 of 2008 Vijay Kumar Arora @ Vijay Kumar, S/o Shri Desh Raj Arora, resident of 302, Royal Palace Apartments, Opp. Agarawal Samaj Hall, Ghurdar Road, Surat, Gujrat. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Raj Barolia, s/o Shri Roshan Lal Barolia, R/o Mohalla Damodarpur, P.S. Kanti, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. …. Opposite Party with Cr.Misc. No.38996 of 2009 1. Vijay Kumar Arora @ Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Desh Raj Arora 2. Ankit Arora S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Arora Both R/o 302, Royal Palace Apartments Opp. Aggrawal Samaj Hall, Ghurdoar Road Surat, Gujarat. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Raj Barolia S/o Shri Roshan Lal Barolia PRESENT ADDRESS : C/o. Sh. Narayan K. Bhagaria R/o 135, Jathali, Chamberpur Road Bhilwara (Rajasthan), Pin Code- 311001. OTHER KNOWN ADDRESSES : Mohalla Damodarpur P.S. Kanti, distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar AND Mohalla Dhobia Gali Gajadhar Choudhary Lane Sutapati, P.S. Nagar District Muzaffarpur, Bihar. AND Mohalla Suttapatti, Gajanand Choudhary Lane, P.S. Nagar, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. For the Petitioners (in all cases) : Mrs. Soni Srivastava and Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s. Prashant Sinha, and Mayank Shekhar, Advocates. 2 ----------- 5 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. These three quashing applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (West), Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1153 of 2006, Trial No. 1193 of 2008, in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Section 380, 447 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, the second case is with respect to the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 659 of 2007, Trial No. 1314 of 2008, in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Section 147, 323, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and the third case is with respect to order dated 04.05.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 3030 of 2008, Trial No. 3739 of 2009 in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Raj Barolia is the complainant who has filed three complaint petitions against his wife Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora, father-in-law, Vijay Kumar Arora and in one case has also made the brother-in-law accused. The background of the case, according to the petitioner no.1 Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora, is that she was never 3 married to Raj Barolia. It is said that Raj Barolia was temporarily living at Surat to do certain business and during the aforesaid period the petitioner no.1 and Opposite Party No.2 came into contact. It is submitted that the complainant had falsely stated that the petitioner no.1 Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora was his wife. The background of the case or the genesis according to opposite party is that the opposite party no.2 claims that he was a businessman having a good textile business at Surat. He lived with the petitioners between the period 2002 to 2006 and came into contact with Vijay Kumar Arora. They became business associates. Later, Vijay Kumar Arora took loan for his business from Opposite Party No.2. In these four years, the Opposite Party No.2 was associated with the petitioner Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora. He met with Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora and both of them fell in love. Later on, the marriage was performed on 26.05.2006, which was also registered with the Marriage Registrar, Surat. The trouble began when the Opposite Party No.2 demanded his money from the petitioner Vijay Kumar Arora who had taken a loan. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit has been filed on behalf of Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora to declare their marriage as nullity as her signature was taken on a blank paper which was presented before the Registrar of Marriages. The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed 4 Matrimonial Case No. 65 of 2008 for restitution of his conjugal rights with petitioner Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora at Muzaffarpur. The facts stated aforesaid are admitted facts of the case of the parties as mentioned in the affidavit before this Court. In this background, this Court will now refer to the cases filed by the Opposite Party No.2 against his wife and other family members. The first case is Complaint Case No. 1153 of 2006 dated 22.09.2006, in which cognizance has been taken under Section 380, 447, & 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in short, is that Vijay Kumar Arora came to the house of the complainant at Muzaffarpur and on the pretext of her mother, being very ill, took the complainant back to Surat. At that time the complainant was not present at his residence at Muzaffarpur. When he returned, he found that gold ornaments worth Rs. 60,000/- were missing from his house. The complainant apprehends that his father-in-law has surreptitiously taken the daughter away in order to get her married elsewhere and as such, Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code has also been included in the order of cognizance. The second case is Complaint Case No. 659 of 2007 filed on 03.04.2000 under Section 147, 323, 384 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in this complaint petition that accused persons have obtained the privilege of Section 205 Cr.P.C. the accused persons came to the shop of the complainant abused and 5 assaulted him, took signature on business land on a blank paper and also divested him a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Quashing applications were filed in these two cases, a Bench of this Court granted stay in the aforesaid cases on 15.09.2008. Notices were issued to the complainant- Opposite Party No.2. The third complaint petition has been filed alleging that there was a talk of compromise between the parties and it was finally settled on 15.06.2007 in which a plea was taken that Vijay Kumar Arora would return certain amount of money and the parties had also agreed that Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora will return back to her husband. The Opposite Party No.2 apprehends that his wife has been possibly taken away by the father and brother so that they can re-marry her with somebody else and thus the third complaint case was filed from the aforesaid apprehensions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these three cases have been filed with mala-fide and malicious intention to twist the arms of Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora and her father Vijay Kumar Arora so that the opposite party no.2 may not insist on pursuing the cases regarding the matrimonial dispute and co-operate with them so that the case of Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora so far as grant of degree of nullity of the marriage is concerned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite 6 Party No.2 submits that his client has time and again, been ill- treated by the petitioners and although Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora was married before the Marriage Registrar of Surat with the Opposite Party No.2, she has deliberately filed the case alleging that the certificate of marriage was obtained by playing fraud on her. It is submitted that the father-Vijay Kumar Arora in order to pressurize the Opposite Party No.2 to give up the money which the petitioner no.2 Vijay Kumar Arora had taken as loan, has instigated petitioner no.1 Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora and in fact has taken away his wife away. It is obvious from the pleadings of the parties and the facts stated in the complaint petition, that the main dispute lies with respect to the validity of the marriage and matters arising with respect to the relationship between the parties. If, it is to be presumed for the present, that the petitioner no.1 was married with Raj Barolia-Opposite Party No.2, then the obvious finding would be that there is a matrimonial dispute between petitioner no.1 and Opposite Party No.2 which had led to the filing of the various cases. On the other hand, if, it is to be presumed that there was a business relation between Raj Barolia and Vijay Kumar Arora, then also the Court could conclude that these cases have been filed as there was a dispute between them with respect to a business transaction involving money. In other words, whatever be the truth is regarding the 7 factum of marriage, the conclusion is that three cases have obviously been filed to twist the arm of the petitioners no.1 or petitioner no.2 so that either the marriage may be restored or that the opposite party may be successful in persuading the petitioner no.2 to pay back the alleged loan. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the facts as alleged in the three complaint petitions improbable. This Court, therefore, will examine the allegations. It is alleged that the petitioner no.2 surreptitiously took away the petitioner no.1 from the house of the Opposite Party No.2 in the year 2006. The allegation is that when she left her home with her father and took away cash and gold is a improbable storyn. Similarly, the allegations as made out in the second complaint petition that the petitioners had come all the way from Surat to Muzaffarpur, just to assault the petitioner and threatened him seems to be quite unfair- a farfetched story and can not be believed. The only reason which would motivate the petitioner no.2 to come all the way from Surat to Muzaffarpur, would be to try some sort of settlement with the petitioner no.2, whether it was with respect to the daughter’s future or with regard to the business transaction between the parties. This Court further disbelieves the case on the ground that Muzaffarpur is the opposite party No.2’s home ground, and to imagine that a man from Surat could create a racus at the shop supposedly belonging to Opposite Party No. 2’s father is 8 absolutely impossible, especially in a place like Muzaffarpur. This Court also finds that the third case filed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand, in view of the fact that it is belated. Petitioner No.1 Sweta Vijay Kumar Arora allegedly left the house at Muzaffarpur on 22.09.2006. After two years of that occurrence, it has been alleged that she has been taken away by her father in order to marry her or to somebody else or to induce her to have illicit physical relationship with the third party seems to the Court not only farfetched but an improbable allegation. It cannot be sustained in the background of this particular case, that Vijay Kumar Arora could induce his daughter to enter into a physical relation with anybody or that the father would marry his daughter to a third party knowing very well, that unless he gets a degree annulling the said marriage, whether it be genuine or obtained by fraud, the marriage would not only be illegal, but would lead to further complications for his daughter. Having considered the entire gamut of facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that the cases filed by the Opposite Party No.2 have perhaps been filed out of frustration or for whatever reasons, but are impossible to believe. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases aforesaid, I quash the order dated 17.10.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1153 of 2006, Trial No. 1193 of 2008, order dated 13.11.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 659 of 2007, 9 Trial No. 1314 of 2008, and order dated 04.05.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 3030 of 2008, Trial No. 3739 of 2009. These applications are allowed. Md. Ibrarul ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)