IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41674 of 2007 SHYAM SUNDER MAHATO SON OF JAGADISH MAHATO, R/O SAHODARA, P.S.- CHANDRADIP, DISTRICT- JAMUI, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF PARBELIA COLLIERY, P.O. & P.S.- NETURIA, DISTRICT- PURULIA (WEST BENGAL) Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NILAM DEVI @ NILAM MAHATO, D/O SRI BINESHWAR MAHATO, R/O VILLAGE- GOURA, P.S.- HALSI, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Jyoti Shankar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. R. B. Roy, APP 4 09/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite the fact that a Vakalatnama has been filed on her behalf and name of the learned counsel is appearing in the cause list. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.7.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 450 ( C ) of 2006 by the learned S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai whereby cognizance under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and two others. A complaint petition was filed by the complainant, the opposite party no. 2, claiming herself to be the second wife of the petitioner and alleged that their marriage was performed long back. After marriage the accused persons started torturing her. Petitioner’s first wife is Chando Devi aged 47 years. After examination of the complainant on S.A and after recording the statement of the witnesses cognizance was taken by the impugned order. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an employee of Purbellia Colliery since 1.5.1981 and occasionally he used to visit his village home and he used to attend the village as per the leave granted by the Colliery. The complainant has alleged that she lived in the matrimonial home for six months but in fact she was never married with the petitioner. Earlier also the opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint Case vide Complaint Case No. 229 C of 1998 against 11 persons and in that case name of Chando Devi was not mentioned in the capacity of the petitioner’s wife. It has further been argued that the case is pending since long but no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party to oppose the quashing of the impugned order which shows that the opposite party no. 2 has no grievance. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a father of a son who is reading in Purbellia Colliery Hindi Primary School since 1990. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to marry with a lady on the pretext that he was issueless. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to oppose the prayer of the petitioner despite the fact that the Vakalatnama has been filed on her behalf. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.7.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 450 ( C ) of 2006 by the learned S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai is hereby quashed. Avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)