IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55832 of 2007 1. SHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SUKHDEO PRASAD 2. RANJEET KUMAR, SON OF LATE SUKHDEO PRASAD 3. SWARNLATA KUMARI, WIFE OF RANJEET KUMAR 4. PINKI KUMARI @ NIKITA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF RANJEET KUMAR 5. PRAKASH @ PINTU KUMAR, SON OF RANJEET KUMAR ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAGARNAUSA, P.S. NAGARNAUSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 6. RINA KUMARI @ KUMARI RINA SINHA, WIFE OF SHANTANU KUMAR 7. SHANTANU KUMAR, SON OF RAMCHANDRA PRASAD BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TINA, P.S. NAGARNAUSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 8. RAJJANDAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE BHATU MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAKRORAH, P.S. NAGARNAUSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 9. BABLI KUMARI, WIFE OF SHAILESH KUMAR 10. SHAILESH KUMAR, SON OF PROFESSOR KRISHNA PRASAD BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/MOHALLA RAM CHANDRA PUR, PROFESSOR COLONY, BIHAR SHARIF, P.S. BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT NALANDA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANITA KUMARI, WIFE OF INDRAJEET KUMAR VILLAGE/P.S. NAGARNAUSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** 4 7.12.2010 Petitioners have been made accused and cognizance taken in a case under sections 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in- law, petitioner no. 2 is the elder brother- in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the wife of petitioner no. 2, petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are minor children of petitioner no. 2, petitioner no. 6 is the married sister-in- law, petitioner no. 7 is the husband of petitioner no. 6, petitioner no. 8 is a stranger to the family and said to be 2 mediator in this case, petitioner no. 9 is the married sister-in-law and petitioner no. 10 is the husband of petitioner no. 9. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the aforesaid persons knowing very well that the husband of the complainant Indrajeet Kumar was married to Anita Kumari, participated and arranged the second marriage. It is said that petitioner no. 8 along with one other mediated between the two families and arranged the marriage. It is also alleged that other accused persons had participated in the second marriage of Indrajeet Kumar. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code envisages that a man or a woman who is already married, marries a second time in the life time of the spouse would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Obviously Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code does not apply to the petitioners. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the petitioners were present when the second marriage took place in ‘Surya Mandir Asthan’ at Hilsa. The facts disclose that a case 3 numbered as Hilsa P.S. Case No. 115 of 2005 was instituted on 12.5.2005 against the husband and his family members in which cognizance has been taken and it is pending for disposal. Thereafter the complainant has filed a maintenance case which is also pending in the Court below. Subsequent to which Indrajeet Kumar the husband has filed a divorce case which is also pending for disposal. The present case has been filed against the petitioners and several other persons in which it is alleged that they are responsible for the second marriage. Even if the allegation that Indrajeet Kumar has remarried is said to be correct, it cannot be said that the marriage was arranged by the petitioners. The man getting married i.e. Indrajeet Kumar is a grown up man and it is expected that he is well aware of the law, as well as his circumstances, and, therefore, to say that he was influenced by one or the other person for a second marriage would be quite incorrect. The fact that some of the petitioners being family members know about the fact or that they visited Indrajeet Kumar does not make them 4 responsible for the acts of Indrajeet Kumar. As far as the allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is already a substantial case against the husband and his close family members and as such I do not think that a case under Section 498A would be made out in the facts set out in the complaint petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence would be under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts as set out in the complaint petition do not disclose the ingredients of abatement. In order to be described as an abettor of a criminal offence, an element of conspiracy as well as an element of misrepresentation should be present to complete the offence. The allegations made out in the complaint petition do not support the ingredients of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In any event, the Court has not taken cognizance under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. I may also state that the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 were minors at the alleged time of occurrence. It seems that the case has 5 been filed without any application of mind as the minor children would hardly be responsible for the offences alleged. In the result, I quash the order dated 11.10.2007, passed in Complaint Case NO. 269 (C) of 2007 as far as it concerns the petitioners. This application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)