IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10998 of 2007 RAJESH CHOUDHARY @ RAJESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF LALA CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHOTAKI RAJAWA, P.S. HASSANPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR.-- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. USHA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF MUNSI CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAMHARIA, P.S. NAV KOTHI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI AND WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR JAYSAWAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUJAFFARA, P.S. VEERPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 6 23.3.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 12.1.2007, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in C.R. No. 614 of 2006/Tr. No. 3074 of 2007 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and under Section 323 against the other accused persons. In this case, notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 on 17.7.2007, 5.9.2008 and 20.2.2009. It has reported that the notices are served validly and the matter has come for final disposal of the case. Nobody is appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite valid service of notice on opposite party no. 2 in this case. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the complainant and the petitioner entered into negotiation of marriage on 10.7.2000. It is admitted by the complainant that she was earlier married and that on 11.1.2002 there was a judgment in her favour and her marriage stood dissolved. Thereafter she is said to have married this petitioner on 30.1.2002. The allegation is that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and she alleges that the petitioner had relationship with one Rima Devi, whom he eventually married. The 2 lady further alleges that the petitioner grabbed all her jewels and gave it to Rima Devi. On the basis of the aforesaid facts cognizance has been taken under Sections 320, 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to complaint petition filed by the said Usha Devi against her earlier husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which was disposed of by order and judgment dated 13.2.2006 contained in annexure-2. In the said judgment the Court has held that since the parties have compromised and the occurrence is not proved beyond doubt, the accused of that case were exonerated of the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case i.e. Complaint Case No. 1116C/2000 a compromise petition was filed in which it has been stated that “;g fd esy feyki ds dkj.k vc nksuksa i{kksa esa vPNk laca/k gks x;k gS fdlh i{k dks ,d nqljs ls dksbZ f’kdk;r ugha jgk vkSj vkil esa ;g r; fd;k x;k gS fd mHk; i{k viuh viuh ethZ ls nqljh ’kknh djsaxsaA” This petition was filed on 29.11.2005. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Usha Devi cannot claim that she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner on 30.1.2002 and, therefore, the allegation with respect to demand of dowry and in fact with respect to performing a second marriage appears to be a false statement. The lady could not have remarried anyone without divorce from Sunil Kumar Jaiswal who was admittedly her husband. On the basis of the aforesaid facts i.e. the judgment of Court in 3 Complaint Case No. 111C/2000 dated 13.2.2006 this Court finds it difficult to hold that the opposite party is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the order of cognizance dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in C.R. No. 614 of 2006/Tr. No. 3074 of 2007 is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)