IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43383 of 2007 1. ASHAAD JAMAL @ ARSHAD JAMAL @ GUFRAN Son of Rizwanullah 2. Rizwanullah, son of Late Abdul Mannan 3. Mehroom Nesa, wife of Rizwanullah 4. Subahan,son of Rizwannullah All are resident of village-Nandpur, Diuliya, P.S. Shikarpur, District- West Champaran ------------------------------ Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sumaiya Samim, D/O Neyajuddin, resident of Village-Sathi Bazar, P.S. Sathi, District-West Champaran --------------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Srivastava, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : None __________ 3 15.01.2009 In Complaint Case no.1435( C) of 2003 filed by one Sumaiya Samim, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, six persons were arrayed as accused, but cognizance was taken under Section 498A I.P.C.against only four of them. These four persons being the petitioners herein have filed this application for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising from the said complaint case pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,West Champaran at Bettiah. The complainant-Opp.Party no.2 filed the said complaint petition on 20.6.2003 inter alia alleging the commission of offences under Section 498 A I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the allegations that on 8.7.2002 her marriage with - 2 - petitioner no.1 was solemnized ,in which Dain Mohar was fixed at Rs.15,551/- and on the date of marriage itself, the Vidai ceremony took place and she proceeded to her matrimonial home and on arrival there she was immediately subjected to mental torture by her in-laws and her husband which she bore patiently. It is also alleged that that very night her husband entered into the room at about 12-00 mid-night in a stupor condition and started abusing her in filthy language and when she reminded him that under the Muslim Law drinking alcohol was prohibited, he went into a rage and started assaulting her with fists and slaps and when she raised alarm the other accused also arrived and started assaulting her. The brother of the complainant who had accompanied her to the matrimonial home rushed to her rescue, but he too was assaulted by the accused persons. The further case is that when information about the incident was given to the complainant’s father by her brother , he along with witnesses came to the matrimonial home and found several injuries on the body of the complainant and when he inquired from his Samdhi about the same , the Samdhi gave out that he had been paid only Rs.40,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- remained unpaid and should be paid within ten days and till such payment of the said amount was made , the Vidai of the complainant cannot be accepted. It is again alleged and on expiry of ten days she was again assaulted by the accused persons and ousted from the matrimonial home whereupon she went to the house of her Mausi ( maternal aunt) who lived in the same village and complained to her of her husband keeping a concubine - 3 - Munni Devi who was residing in the same house. A Panchayati is said to have been held in the preceding January where her father gave Rs.30,000/- in front of the panches and her husband assured that he will never take to drinking and would keep the complainant with all honour and dignity and upon such assurance she returned back to her matrimonial home but there was no apparent change in the conduct and behaviour of her husband and her in-laws and on 19.6.2003 she was again ousted from the matrimonial home after being assaulted. At the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. , the learned court below did not find the allegations against the accused Angori Begam and Md. Israil to be true and hence no cognizance was taken against them. The court below also did not find the allegations of Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to be true against any of the six persons arrayed as accused, and as such, no cognizance was taken against any of them. Assailing the impugned order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Title Suit no.169 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights was filed but a joint petition signed by both the parties was filed therein to allow dissolution of their marriage .On the basis thereof divorce was given on 5.12.2006 and on the basis of the said joint petition, the marriage of petitioner no.1 with Opp.Party no.2 was dissolved by the Judgment and decree dated 27.12.2006 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah. It is also submitted that a similar joint petition in the light of their divorce was filed in Maintenance Case no.367 (M) of 2005 preferred by Opp.Party - 4 - no.2 for dropping the said maintenance case as she had received all her legal dues from petitioner no.1 and in the light of the said joint petition as well as decree of divorce , the learned Principal Judge, Family Court dismissed the said maintenance case. It is also said that on 28.12.2006 , a joint petition filed by the parties in the instant Complaint Case no.1435 ( C) of 2003 for dropping the said Complaint case on the basis of the divorce was filed and, thereafter, the complainant left doing pairvi , but notwithstanding the same the complaint case has been kept pending and non-bailable warrants of arrest has been issued against the petitioners and, accordingly, a prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceedings for the ends of justice. It is apparent from perusal of the entire ordersheet of Complaint Case no.1435 (C) of 2003, Tr.No.533 of 2006 that a joint petition for dropping the proceedings had been filed in the court on 28.12.2006, but the same does not appear to have been moved and the case was kept pending awaiting execution report of the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued earlier. Notice was issued to Opp.Party no.2 and in pursuance of the notice, she put in an appearance by filing Vakalatnama. However, at the time of hearing of this application, none was present on her behalf, and as such, the assertion raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners remains unrebutted . It is true that an offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. is not compoundable but where compromise petition has been filed for - 5 - dropping the proceedings following the ground of a decree of divorce and dropping the maintenance case, no purpose would be served by keeping the instant case alive. Since the complainant who is required to adduce evidence in support of her complaint petition, is not interested in pursuing the matter there would hardly be any evidence in support of the complaint petition and in such circumstances, it would be futile to keep the case pending. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and complaint petition No. 1435 ( C) of 2003 , Tr.No.533 of 2006 pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-