1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.19 of 1998 -------- Against the judgment passed in complaint Case No. 1129 of 1990/ Trial No. 436 of 1998 Shri Anand Kumar Gupta. J.M. Ist class, Muzaffarpur. =========================================================== Nand Kishore Singh @ Nandu Singh son of Srti Lakhan Singh resident of Mohalla Balughat, P.S. Town, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1.State Of Bihar 2.Laldeo Kumar son of Satya Narain Singh 3.Sona Devi wife of Laldeo Kumar 4.Sanjeev Kumar son of Laldeo Kumar, all are resident of mohalla Pokhar North VeerKunwar Singh Colony, P.S. Toown District Vaishali (Hajipur) .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi (Amiicus Curiae) For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. For the respondent nos 2 to 4 : Mr. Kanhaiya Pd. Singh, Advocate. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT The 30th September 2011 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD) This criminal appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Judicial magistrate Ist class, Muzaffarpur in complaint case No. 1129 of 1990. The prosecution case is that marriage of daughter of the complainant was solemnized with Sanjeev Kumar Singh and after the marriage he demanded cash of Rs. 200000/- colour T.V and two katha of land and on refusal the accused persons started cruelty and while the accused persons were planning to murder then she any how managed to save her. On the complaint cognizance was taken and during trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. During the trial the accused 2 persons developed prosecution story that ten days prior to the marriage there was a demand of cash, colour T.V. and on refusal accused persons subjected to cruelty and ultimately on 6.11.1990 the complainant run away to her Naihar. The defence of the accused persons is that no marriage every was solemnized and the Sanjeev Kumar Singh was kidnapped and was forcibly married. Sanjeev Kumar was manor on the date of marriage with the complainant The trial court taking into consideration the evidence and taking into consideration the fact that the complainant himself admitted that a complaint case was filed by the father of the Sanjeev Kumar against the appellant for kidnapping him on 29.5.1990 in Hajipur . It is also admitted that Laldeo the father of Sanjeev Kumar had not attended the marriage nor any barati has come to attend the barat. Further the complainant had filed several criminal cases in civil court which includes the case of theft of motorcycle. Taking into consideration of the facts as well as the evidence of the prosecution witness on the point of demand and subjecting to cruelty the court held that the prosecution has not proved its case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the occurrence is of the year 1990 and more than 20 years have passed no useful purpose will be served keeping the case pending and also there is no justification to revive the complaint, I do not find any illegally in the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and I also do not found any perversity to take a different view in the matter. Hence I do not find any merit and the appeal is dismissed. . (Gopal Prasad, J) Patna High Court, The 30th September 2011 Rahman/ (N.A.F.R)