IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1359 of 2005 1. MANISH KUMAR 2. Shambhu Singh @ Shambhu Prasad. Both are sons of Chandrika Singh. 3. Chandrika Singh son of Late Baij Nath Singh. 4. Laxminiya Devi w/o Chandrika Singh 5. Renu Devi w/o Vinay Singh 6. Vinay Singh son of Sri Ramjee Singh All are resident of Village Bocha Chak, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 7. Sangram Singh son of Dev Prasad Singh, resident of village Bramhpur, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 8. Mukesh Kumar Singh son of Sidheshwar Singh, resident of Village Sikarpur, Police Station Danapur, District Patna. 9. Chandani Kumari d/o Dinesh Singh, resident of Village Ranipur, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anju Devi d/o Sri Suresh Prasad, resident of Village Shiva Chak Gonpura, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 3. Suresh Pd. @ Suresh Singh S/o Doolal Singh, resident of Village Shiva Chak Gonpura, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District Patna. . . . . . . Opposite Parties. ----------- 13/ 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners, who are 9 in numbers, pray for quashing the order dated 11.11.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case no. 1458 (C) of 2004, whereby cognizance has been taken of offence under Sections 498 A, 494 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners. In spite of notice, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 on previous day. Today also no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of opp. party no.2, petitioner no.2 is brother of petitioner no.1, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2, Petitioner no.5 and 6 are - 2 - sister-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no.2, petitioner no.7 is ‘Fufa’ of petitioner no.1, petitioner no.8 is another brother-in-law and petitioner no. 9 is said to be the second wife of petitioner no.1. The prosecution case in short is as follows: Opposite party no.2 filed complaint case on 02.07.2004 stating therein that she had married petitioner no. 1, on 10.05.1992. In 1996, she returned to her Sasural for second time. On 30.05.2004, the complainant again came to her Sasural, whereas on 27.06.2004 she was again driven out from the house. On 30.06.2004, she again came to her Sasural alongwith her father but the opposite parties refused to entertain them. It is alleged that petitioner no.1 has contracted second marriage. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order of cognizance on various grounds. Learned counsel submits that petitioner no.1, in fact was forcefully married with opposite no.2 in the year, 1992 by abduction. Petitioner no.3, father of petitioner no.1, filed a complaint case on 26.05.1992, being Complaint case no.333 (c) of 1992, for abduction of his son. In the aforesaid case, charges have been framed and the trial is going on. He states that the instant case has been filed by way of vengeance and to deter the petitioners from pursuing the criminal case. Petitioner no.1 had filed a Matrimonial case also for declaring the marriage null and void, as he was a minor on the date of marriage in the year, 1992. Learned counsel submits that though the suit was dismissed on 19.12.1996, as petitioner did not appear for cross-examination, Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, assessed his age 16 years at the time of his examination-in-chief in 1995. However, F.A. No. 189 of - 3 - 2004 has been filed against impugned dismissal. On these premises, the petitioner no. 1 states that he would be a minor, 12 years of age, on the date of alleged marriage. He further submits that marriage of a minor is a nullity and void. Further more, the complainant, besides petitioner no.1, has implicated his other family members, some of them being distantly related, to wreak vengeance for having filed case of abduction against the prosecution side, which was now at an advance stage. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that allegation in complaint disclose a prima facie case. Heard counsel for the parties, it would appear from the complaint case itself, that the complainant was driven out from in-law’s house, in 1996 and she came back only on 30.05.2004 to stay there hardly for a month, as she was again ousted on 27.06.2004. On perusal of the complaint case, it is found that vague and general allegations have been made against other family members, being petitioner nos. 2 to 9. The complainant, as per her own case remained ousted for nearly 8 years from 1996 to 2004, still she did not file any complaint. It appears that as trial progressed in Complaint case no. 333 (c) of 1992 under Sections 363, 368, 365 etc., not only the husband (petiti9ner no.1) but other relatives have also been implicated as a vengeance as an after thought, after 8 years. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find sufficient ground and materials to proceed the case against petitioner nos. 2 to 9, as such the prosecution against these persons are quashed. However, this application is dismissed against petitioner no.1, - 4 - the husband, with liberty to seek remedy at the time of framing of charge. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)