CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13477 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) 1. NARENDRA KUMAR VERMA SON OF PASUPATINATH VERMA 2. PASUPATINATH VERMA SON OF NAMALUM, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNDARI, P.S. BARHARIA, DIST.- SIWAN ….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. REKHA DEVI W/O NARENDRA KUMAR VERMA D/O SURESH PRASAD PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARDIA, P.S. BARHARIA, DIST.- SIWAN …… OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, Advocate For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioners is kept on the record. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.2.2004 by which the S.D.J.M., Siwan has taken cognizance u/s.498A I.P.C. in Complaint case No.1754 of 2003. The petitioner no.1 happens to be the husband of the complainant, whereas the petitioner no.2 happens to be the father-in-law of the complainant but since he has died during the pendency of this application, the application in so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned is directed to be withdrawn as having become infructuous. On 25.11.2005 the opposite party no.2 was noticed to appear personally to show cause as to why the 2 application be not admitted or disposed of at the admission stage itself and the matter was stayed till further orders. On 27.1.2006 service of notice was ordered on the opposite party no.2 once again, pursuant to which the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed a vakalatnama. On 27.3.2006 the matter was admitted for further hearing. Today even though the Counsel for the petitioner no.1 is present, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was married with the petitioner no.1 on 23.6.1999 but she was regularly tortured for demands of dowry and finally she was ousted from her house in November, 1999. Even thereafter efforts were made to compromise the matter and it was alleged that the petitioner no.1 had sent notices to her father, to which he did not reply. In September, 2003 the complainant again went to her in-laws house but she was not kept but assaulted and abused and then the present case was filed on 12.12.2003. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner no.1 that in fact the complainant has stopped living in the house of the petitioner after November, 1999 and the petitioner no.1 had sent notices to her, despite which she did not return and the relationship between the 3 parties ended thereafter. There was no question of any demands having made upon her subsequently and therefore the entire complaint is belated and without any basis. In fact even the opposite party no.2 in her Matrimonial case No.24 of 2008 filed for divorce had admitted in paragraph 7 that they had stopped living as husband and wife since 1999. It has further been submitted that when the petitioner no.1 had filed an application for anticipatory bail the matter was sent for conciliation and the complainant refused to live with the petitioner no.1 despite entreaties by him which showed the unyielding attitude of the opposite party no.2. Moreover from the first information report it appears that there is no specific instances of any torture and the allegations are general and vague in nature. The further submission is that it is impossible to believe that in a period of only six months in which the marriage subsisted the matter became so out of hand that the parties could not live together. On going through the complaint petition, there is no doubt that the complaint is undoubtedly delayed and after November, 1999 the allegations that efforts are being taken by the complainant to patch up the matter and she was rebuked appears to be superfluous and only with a view to bridge the gap between November, 1999 to the date of institution of the complaint. Moreover the complaint 4 appears to be vague and without any specific details and the continuance of the same would amount to abuse of the processes of the Court. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order dated 26.2.2004 passed by the S.D.J.M., Siwan in Complaint case No.1754 of 2003 is quashed. Patna High Court Dated,9th July,2010. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )