IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.52343 of 2007 KIRAN KUMAR @ KIRAN KUMAR SINHA @ KIRAN KR.SRIVASTAVA @ Kiran Lal, son of Dadal Lal Sinha, resident of village- Diwan Ke Barkagaon, P.S. Sikraul, District- Buxar, at present residing in MOhalla- Dhobighat, P.S. and District- Buxar ...Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Sarita Shrivastava @ Nidhi Shrivastava, wife of Shri Pradeep Kumar, resident of village- and P.O. Churamanpur, District- Buxar, daughter of Prem Kumar Shrivastava, resident of village and P.O.- Mahdah, P.S. and District- Buxar …Opposite Parties ----------- 5/ 02.04.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, in Buxar P.S. case no.210 of 2006, by which cognizance has been taken under sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution case is that on 31.5.2004, the informant contracted legal married with the present petitioner but she was tortured on account of non-fulfillment of dowry and thereafter she fled away from her matrimonial house on 31.5.2006. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under section 498-A Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the court took cognizance accordingly. The contention of the petitioner is that the informant is totally stranger to the present petitioner and, in fact, the petitioner was married to one Manju Devi on 20.2.2002, which is borne out from the documents annexed in the present petition. Annexure-2 is the complaint filed by one Deepak Kumar Sinha, brother of the said - 2 - Manju Devi, wife of the petitioner, for the offence under sections 498- A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said complaint, it has been alleged in paragraph 16 that the petitioner had also contracted a second marriage with the present informant during existence of the first marriage. This leaves no room for doubt that in fact, the petitioner was legally married to one Manju Devi and even if the present informant is believed, she would not come within the definition of “wife” and, therefore, section 498- A Indian Penal Code would have no application at all in the present case. Moreover, during investigation of the present case, when the informant was examined, she also admitted that in fact, she had contracted the second marriage with the petitioner without knowing that he was earlier married to Manju Devi, who had also been tortured by the present petitioner and his family members due to which she had filed a case reference to which has been given above. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of his conjugal rights with Manju Devi sometime in 2005 i.e. before the present complaint, in which on 31.3.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No. I, Buxar, had held that Manju Devi was legally married wife of the petitioner and she without reasonable cause had withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner and had ordered for restitution of conjugal rights. This document further validates the contention that in fact, the petitioner was legally married - 3 - husband of one Manju Devi and the opposite party no.2 had no legal status in matrimonial relationship with the petitioner. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, in Buxar P.S. case no.210 of 2006 taking cognizance under sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)