IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51105 of 2007 1. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH @ ARVIND KUMAR, son of late Raghunandan Singh. 2. Anita Kumari, wife of Arvind Kumar Singh both resident of village - Cheran, P.S. Harnaut, District – Nalanda. ---------------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Arun Prakash, son of Ram Nagina Singh, village – Birampur, P.S. - Harnaut, District – Nalanda, at present Advocate, Civil Court, Biharsharif, Nalanda. -------------- Opposite Parties. ------- 5 30.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and Opposite Parties. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 11.09.2007, passed by Sri Manoj Kumar-II, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in Complaint Case No. 531(C)/2007 for the offence under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, against the applicants in the complaint filed against three others against whom no prima facie case was found. Further proceeding of the court below has already remain stayed by the order of this Court dated 30.01.2009. On the submission of the Bar that no further progress is made in this case after passing of the impugned order. Opposite party no. 2 was also ordered to be noticed to show cause as to why this application be not disposed of at the admission stage itself. On service of notice, opposite party no. 2 - 2 - appeared by filing of Vakalatnama but, no show cause has been filed. On the basis of contents of application along with the documents annexed and submissions made by learned counsels representing the parties, admitted case of the parties is that parties are well known to each other since before and negotiation for marriage of daughter of the applicants Anamika Kumari, with younger brother of opposite party no.2 was finalized, dates were fixed and some sorts of gifts on the relevant occasions were also given by parties to each other. But, subsequently, on account of some sort of differences, the marriage could not be solemnized on the due date fixed. As a result of non-solemnization of the marriage of the daughter of the applicants with younger brother of the opposite party no. 2, the relationship between the parties became bitter and applicant no. 1 got registered Harnaut Police Station Case No. 103 of 2007 dated 7th May, 2007, instituted under Sections 420, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against opposite party no. 2 and other members of the family including his younger brother and father giving the reasons of non- solemnization of marriage in his own way as of additional demand of one Maruti Car at the fag end, in spite of payment of huge amount in cash besides different articles when after obtaining loans from relatives as well as G.P.F. Account etc. In the said case, police has already submitted charge sheet - 3 - against three persons including opposite party no. 2 his brother and father. The female members were not found fit to be sent up for trial. Subsequent to aforementioned case i.e. Harnaut P.S. Case No. 103 of 2007 instituted on 7th May, 2007, opposite party no. 2 filed the instant complaint on 18th May, 2007 against applicants and their two daughters including the proposed bride and one son. Alleging that due to relationship between the two families, applicant no. 1 approached the complainant to initiate negotiation to get a piece of land purchased at Patna. Negotiation was materialized and major amount in different parts was paid by applicant no. 1, but a sum of Rs. 91,000/-, in instalments during negotiation, on the request of applicant no. 1 was to be advanced by opposite party no. 2 and his father in cash and paid to the property dealer. Transaction ultimately was complete and sale deed was executed in favour of Anamika Kumari, daughter of applicants. Subsequently, negotiation for marriage of said Anamika Kumari with Younger Brother of opposite party no. 2 was proposed by applicant no. 1. it was accepted and exchange of gifts etc. was also made but, subsequently the complainant who as stated came to know that in place of Anamika Kumari, another good looking younger sister was shown and by such impersonation, marriage was got settled, but, only on the detection of such wrong, proposal was turned - 4 - down. Though, cards etc. were printed. After such turning down of the proposal of marriage as alleged in the complaint case, applicant no. 1 refused to return a sum of Rs. 91,000/- paid by complainant and his father during negotiation and purchase of a piece of land in the name of Anamika Kumari, daughter of the applicant. It is further alleged that applicant were persuaded to get the marriage solemnized otherwise the amount shall not be returned. During inquiry, witnesses were examined and the court below finding prima facie case against the applicants took cognizance for the offences under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code but, exonerated the daughters and son of the applicants. It is also admitted that the opposite party no.2 and his father has already filed Money Suit no. 5 of 2007 against applicant no. 1 and his daughter Anamika Kumari, seeing realization of sum of Rs. 91,000/- with interest etc. asserting the facts stated in the complaint petition. Learned counsel for the applicants in the above background while assailing the impugned order, submitted that in fact the complaint petition was filed is a counter blast of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 103 of 2007 instituted at the instance of applicant no. 1 and even if entire allegation of the complaint petition are taken to be true. There is nothing more than dispute of civil nature for which Money suit has already been filed. - 5 - It is also submitted that in spite of stigma of breaking marriage of daughter of the applicant anyhow she could have now been married when a poor government employee has to spent second time for marriage of one daughter whose marriage could not have performed in spite of huge expenses only because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties did not dispute on the factual aspects arriving out of the materials on record, simply submitted that all such submissions made on behalf of the applicants can be placed and considered during trial before the court below. But, it is unfortunate that marriage of a young girl after finalization of negotiation would not be performed either due to fault of her parents as alleged by placing another good looking girl at the time of initiation of the negotiation or due to exorbitant demands of dowry would be proposed by in-laws and husband. But, it is the girl who is to suffer a lot by such misdeeds. It reveals from complaint petition itself especially when complainant opposite party no.2 in para 12 and 14 of the complaint petition has stated that he and his family members were ready to get the marriage of brother of the complainant solemnized with younger daughter of the applicants who was as alleged shown to them during negotiation of marriage but, their consistent offer was turned down and the applicant no.1 was adamant to marry his another daughter with brother of the - 6 - complainant to justify his wrong has also refused to return the money i.e. sum of Rs. 91,000/- as said advanced during negotiation giving rise to filing of the case. The facts stated above is sufficient to indicate that complaint has been filed against the alleged wrong committed with them and also to realize sum of Rs. 91,000/- as alleged paid to applicant no. 1 in two or three parts at the time of negotiation for purchase of a piece of land at Patna which now he has refused to repay, on whatever reasons, it may be. Thus, on the facts and circumstances, this court is convinced that the instant case has been filed by the complainant opposite party but, without any specific role attributed against applicant no. 2 rather the entire grievance appears to be against applicant no. 1 alone. Simultaneously, it is also evident that the instant case as well as the case filed at the instance of applicant no. 1 bearing Harnaut P.S. Case No. 103 of 2007 under Section 420, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code are intermingled with each other. If both the cases are tried in one court simultaneous to each other, shall only serve the interest of justice and the court proceeding with the simultaneous trial may arrive at definite conclusion about the wrong doer. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the further proceeding of the court below in Complaint Case No. 531(C) of 2007 with respect to applicant no. 2 Anita Kumari, is - 7 - hereby quashed, and simultaneously, it is directed that applicant no. 1 and opposite party no.2 both shall make their endeavours, to get both interconnected cases referred to above transferred in one court seeking indulgence of competent authority. The courts where the two cases are pending shall also take care of compliance of the above order of simultaneous trial of both the cases by one court. With the above direction, this applicant stands partly allowed with respect to applicant no. 2 only. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)