IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42514 of 2007 SIKANDAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O-SRI SUKHDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PANI KAMLA, P.O.-AHMADABAD, P.S. AHMADABAD, DISTRICT-KATIHAR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS DIESEL MACHANIC FITTER, AT LOCO SHED, CHAPRA KACHAHARI, NORTH EAST RAILWAY CHAPRA, DISTT.-CHAPRA. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM KALI DEVI, W/O-NAGESHWAR TURHA ALLEGEDLY CLAIMS TO BE THE WIFE OF SIKANDAR PRASAD SINGH OF MOHALLA-BHAGWAN BAZAR, P.S.-BHAGWAN BAZAR, DISTRICT CHAPRA (SARAN). …..Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Durgesh Nandan (Adv.) For the State : Mr. U.S.P. Singh (APP.) For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Saroj (Adv.) ----------- 04/ 14.05.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for O.P. No. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.07.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 612 of 2005 whereby cognizance under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner Sikandar Prasad Singh and he has been summoned by the court. A Complaint Case was filed by Ram Kali Devi claiming herself to be wife of Sikandar Prasad Singh, the petitioner. That Complaint Case was numbered as 612 of 2005 and registered under Sections 498(A) 12(B), 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant has claimed that she was married with the petitioner on 11.05.2000. Initially, the marriage happily subsisted but subsequently, the petitioner started torturing her 2 and he started living with another lady. The negotiations failed to field. The Complaint was examined on S.A. and the petitioner was summoned to face the prosecution under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant O.P. No. 2, prior to the present case has filed a Complaint Case No. 212 of 2004 dated 05.02.2004 against the petitioner with regard to an occurrence dated 10.05.2000 for offence under Sections 354, 376, 323, 379 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, it was alleged that she was wife of Nageshwar Turha and she has alleged that she was raped by the petitioner. The Complaint Case No. 212 of 2004 was sent to police and Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 236 of 2004 was registered and the matter was sent for investigation. The police after investigation submitted final form saying the case to be untrue vide charge sheet no. 25 of 2004 dated 28.02.2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that name of the petitioner’s wife is Meena Devi. The petitioners’ couple has four children comprising two sons and two daughters. He is a Central Government employee and posted at Loco Shed Chapra Kachahari as Diesel Mechanic Fitter in 3 the Railway and he has got a Free Pass of 2nd Class issued by the North Eastern Railway where it is clearly writted that he is having two sons and two daughters and the name of the petitioner’s wife has been mentioned as Meena Devi. Not only that, voter list dated 01.01.2004 has been annexed to show that the petitioner’s name in the voter list is at serial no. 680 bearing house no. 112 and just after that the name of his wife has been mentioned as Meena Devi who is at serial no. 681 in the voter list. One Ration Card No. 003749/1993 containing the names of the family members of the petitioner has also been annexed and it has been explained that the petitioner’s wife name is Meena Devi. On this basis it has been submitted that O.P. No. 2 is a stranger and not associated at all with the family of the petitioner and she has filed a case with an ulterior motive. She has claimed to be wife of Nageshwar Turha and in that capacity, she has lodged a case against the petitioner, so it has been submitted that without any basis the case was filed and the cognizance was taken. At the time of taking cognizance the Court was merely required to rely upon the complaint petition, statement of the witnesses and the materials produced in course of inquiry. At that 4 time the court has no proof to disbelieve the statement of the complainant but in the present case the petitioner has produced many documents to show that he is not the husband of the complainant rather he is the husband of Meena Devi. After considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 it is clear that the petitioner has properly established that he is not the husband of the opposite party no. 2 rather he is the husband of Meena Devi so no case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution against the petitioner is not justified and it is the misuse of the process of the court. In the result the order taking cognizance dated 31.07.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 612 of 2005 by the learned Magistrate is quashed and this application is allowed. kksinha/ (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)