IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18901 of 2007 BINITA DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner :M/s Satyanarain Mishra & Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : M/s Ram Kumar Sharma, Sr. Advocate & Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate O R D E R The instant application at the instance of the two of the three persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 773 of 2006 is for the quashing of order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, whereby he was pleased to take cognizance against all the accused including the two petitioners under section 498A and 380 IPC and directed for issuance of summons against them. One Jitendra Kumar Pathak, the complainant impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein, who unfortunately happens to be the husband of the petitioner no. 1 and son in law of petitioner no. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint case on 2.10.2006 against the two petitioners and against one Kumud Kant Guru, the phuphera brother of petitioner no. 1, who allegedly used to look after the petitioners as petitioner no. 1 had no other brother or sister of her own. It is alleged that the said Kumud Kant Guru with evil intentions and ill motive detained petitioner no. 1 at Ranchi which instigated the complainant to institute Matrimonial Case 13 of 2005 before the District Judge, Aurangabad for restitution of 2 conjugal rights and the same was disposed of by the Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, in favour of the complainant on 27.3.2006. Pursuant to the said judicial decision and on intervention of well wishers the complainant brought petitioner no. 1 to Aurangabad on 14.4.2006, where they started living as husband and wife. It is alleged that at the time of departure from Ranch accused Kumud Kant Guru had forcibly obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank sheets of paper. It is further alleged that on 8.8.2006 when the complainant and other family members were absent from the house leaving behind his wife and 10 years old daughter, Soni and when he returned home in the evening he found his wife missing. He learnt from his daughter that Kumud Kant Guru had come in the afternoon in a Maruti Car and had taken away Binita. It was later on detected that while leaving the house petitioner no. 1 had taken away Rs. 3000/ in cash along with ornaments worth Rs. 25000/- which were kept in the house and although information was given to the police on the same day they took no action. It is stated that on 2.10.2006 the complainant accompanied by his maternal uncle, Shiv Prasad Mishra, went to his sasural at Ranch with the intention of reasoning with petitioner no. 1 to come back but were not permitted to meet her and instead were abused and given to understanding that they would marry of Binita Devi somewhere else. It is said that even on earlier occasion Binita used to go to her parental home at Ranchi under one pretext or another and 3 whenever the complainant went to bring her back they would quarrel with him, assault him and also extend threats. It is also alleged that on several occasions the complainant had seen his wife in compromising position with Kumud Kant and whenever he objected to the same, all the accused conjointly used to assault the complainant and also extended threats. However afraid of facing social ostracism he had kept the impertinent situation to himself. The further allegation was that petitioner no. 2 and Kumud Kant Guru were using petitioner no. 1 for purposes which were illegal and unwarranted. On perusal of the records, it appears that the main issue involved is the strained relationship between petitioner no. 1 and the complainant who are husband and wife by marriage and this also was the primary cause for the lodging of the matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal live. So far as the allegation levelled against petitioner no. 2 is concerned they are very difficult to accept and to me it appears that the complaint has been filed solely with the motive and intention of putting pressure on petitioner no. 1. To my mind even if the allegation, as made out in the complaint petition are taken at their face value, neither of the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken, appear to have been made out against any of the two petitioners. The complainant can seek his redressal before an appropriate authority in an appropriate proceeding. 4 For the reasons stated above I am inclined to exercise my powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order which to me appears to be unwarranted since the complainant’s case itself appears to have been filed for purposes which are oppressive and vexatious. Accordingly the impugned order, so far as the petitioners herein are concerned, is quashed and the application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 16th of April, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)