IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53597 of 2007 1. SHIV SHANKAR PADIT SON OF LATE BHUTELI PADIT 2. GANGA SAGAR PADIT SON OF LATE BHUTELI PADIT 3. RAMA SHANKAR PADIT SON OF LATE BHUTELI PADIT 4. GYANTI DEVI W/O RAMSHANKAR PADIT 5. SONMOATO DEVI W/O LATE BHUTELI PADIT, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANJIWAR, P.S. RAGHUNATHPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN ………. PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUGANTI DEVI WIFE OF SHIV SHNKAR PANDIT, D/O SHIV DAYAL PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADSAR, P.S. RAGHUNATHPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN …. OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 7.5.2010 Petitioner no.1 is the husband, petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the brothers-in-law, petitioner no.4 is the wife of petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.5 is the mother-in-law of the complainant, who seek quashing of the order dated 31.1.2007 by which the S.D.J.M., Siwan has taken cognizance u/ss.498A and 323 I.P.C. in Complaint case No.676 of 2006. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was married to the petitioner no.1 twenty four years ago and out of their wedlock two children were born. In the first ten years she was kept with due honour and respect but thereafter demand started being made for dowry and in June, 2002 she was assaulted by the accused persons and then on 2.1.2006 she was ousted from the matrimonial home by the accused persons. After due enquiry, the court below took cognizance in the matter and issued summons to all the accused persons. By an order dated 3.3.2008 the opposite party - 2 - no.2 was noticed and further proceedings in the court below in regard to the present case was stayed with regard to all petitioners except petitioner no.1, who happens to be the husband of the complainant. The case of the petitioners is that in fact the present case is a counter blast of a divorce proceeding initiated by the petitioner no.1 on 10.1.2006 and it is only when the opposite party no.2 appeared in the proceeding on 27.4.2007 that about two weeks later on 8.5.2006 she filed the present case with trumped up charges. The further submission of the petitioners is that the allegations are totally general in nature and it is not believable that after ten years of the marriage and two children having been born of the wedlock any demands for dowry would be made by the accused persons and there is no averment in the complaint petition that she was ever treated with such cruelty which was of such a nature which was likely to drive her to commit suicide or have caused grave injury or danger to her life or health which are the essential ingredients of Section 498A I.P.C. Under the circumstances, the further proceeding in the court below is a total abuse of the process of the court. The opposite party no.2 has appeared in the present proceeding and disputes the contention but it is unable to satisfy this Court as to why even though the last act of cruelty was inflicted on the complainant in June, 2002, the present - 3 - complaint was instituted only on 8.5.2006. The opposite party no.2 admits that divorce proceeding is pending between the parties and the complainant had appeared in the proceedings on 27.4.2007 wherein one of the issues that had been framed was “whether opposite party has deserted the petitioner for more than two years just preceding to filing of the petition”. On going through the complaint petition, I find that in the entire complaint, there is no specific averment about any accused whatsoever and the allegations are totally sweeping and general in nature apart from one incident which had taken place in the year 2002. It is not explainable as to why the present complaint has been instituted after much delay and if the last act of cruelty is taken to be committed in June, 2002 evidently the order of cognizance is barred by limitation. Moreover the admitted position is that the present complaint has been instituted by the opposite party no.2 only after she had appeared in the divorce proceeding on 27.4.2007. Therefore, I find that in fact the present case is a counter blast to the earlier divorce proceeding initiated by petitioner no.1, and therefore is directly covered by the landmark decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana and others Versus Bhajan Lal and others) illustrating therein the circumstances in which the court can exercise their inherent jurisdiction. In such background, in my view, this application is - 4 - fit to be allowed and the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Siwan in Complaint case No.676 of 2006 is quashed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )