IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25140 of 2007 ABHAY KUMAR SHARMA S/O JAY NARAYAN RAI, RESIDENT VILLAGE-GARABHUA, P.S. CHANPATIA (SIRSIYA), DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHALINI DEVI @ KAMINI (WIFE OF ABHAY KUMAR SHARMA) DAUGHTER OF KAMLESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA OF PURANAHIYA, P.S. GHOARASAHAN, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN AT PRESENT RESIDING SHRI BIBHISHAN RAI ROHAN, I.T.I. COLONY, JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, P.S. BETTIAH MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN ----------------- OPP.PARTY ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Javed Islam, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya,A.P.P. For Opp. Party no.2 : Mr.Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate --------------- O R D E R 3 21-10-2008 This application by the petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Chanpatia P.S. Case no.159 of 2005, is for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that one Shalini Sharma alias Kamini , the wife of the petitioner , impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, initially filed complaint case bearing no.1231 ( C) of 2005 inter alia alleging that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2003 whereat several items of gifts were presented to her Sasural people . It is said that when her brother came with Kaleba, her Sasural people misbehaved with him for not giving a Maruti car in dowry and threatened that if the car was not given then Shalini would not be permitted peaceful existence in the Sasural. The father of the - 2 - complainant, due to his financial constraints, expressed his inability to cater to the demand but even then assured to pay Rs. one lac in due course after arranging for funds. However, as he could not arrange the assured sum the complainant was subjected to assault and torture by her Sasural people and they even planned to kill her. It is alleged that on the night of 4.11.2004, the complainant’s mother-in-law administered poison but she was saved by the timely intervention of the neighbours. In the meantime, on receiving information, her father with other relatives arrived and arranged treatment for her. On recovery and assurances given by the Sasural people not to torture her, she went back to her Sasural but after a passage of 2-3 months, she was again subjected to torture for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand and eventually on 13.6.2005 after confiscating her Streedhan she was assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home. The said complaint petition on being transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the instant Chanpatia P.S. Case came to be registered on 7.7.2005. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he is employed as a specialized cook with “Masala World” in London and on learning about the institution of the case he applied for anticipatory bail upto the Apex Court where after issuing notice to the informant directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating agency and appear before the investigating agency and the trial court as and when required and finally the said application was dismissed. Following the directions of the Apex Court the petitioner joined in the investigation - 3 - and as the matter was eventually compromised, a joint compromise petition was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah with a petition for permission to compound the case. It was also submitted that the petitioner on appearance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah was allowed bail on 20.3.2007 on condition that the bailors will be his local relatives and he was also directed to produce his passport in court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further sought to submit that a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent being Divorce Case no.84 of 2007 signed by the petitioner and Shalini was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champarant at Bettiah on 4.5.2007 and was admitted on 5.5.2007. On the aforesaid premise, it was submitted that the compromise petition having been filed along with the case for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and Shalini having been gone to her relatives place in Assam , nothing now remains and further continuance of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has very fairly conceded in the Court that the submissions on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are true and he does not dispute the same. He has also fairly conceded that in view of the developments having taken place the complainant was no more interested in - 4 - pursuing the criminal litigation any further. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and very reasonable stand taken by Opp. Party no.2 and her counsel , the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Chanpatia P.S.Case No.159 of 2005 is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-