CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21293 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) ------------ 1. SUNIL KUMAR 2. ANIL KUMAR 3. RAJKUMAR @ RAJU 4. RAJESH KUMAR @ PAPPU ALL SONS OF LATE JAGAT NARAYAN MANDAL 5. MOSTT. DROPUDU DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE JAGAT NARAYAN MANDAL 6. BINDU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE JAGAT NARAYAN MANDAL ALL RESIDENT OF IDGAH ROAD, KESHOPUR, P.S. JAMALPUR, DISTT. MUNGER AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 419A, GALI NO. 6, SANT NAGAR, BURARI, DELHI – 110 084 ------PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANITA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI JAMUN PRASAD SAH, C/O M/S. ANITA PAPAD BHANDAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA– MADHNUCHAK, MIRJAN HAT, P.S. MUJAHIDPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR. ------OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---------- For the petitioners : Mr. Debendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Krishna Mohan, Advocate. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nand Kumar, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The petitioners seek quashing of the entire Complaint Case No. 1263 of 2003 pending before the S.D.J.M. Bhagalpur including the order dated 23.12.2003 by which he has taken cognizance in the matter as also the order dated 30.6.2004 by which Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Civil Revision No. 229 of 2004 has dismissed the revision application filed against the order of cognizance. 2 2. On 17.8.2004, notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and the matter was admitted for hearing with an interim order of stay of further proceeding in the court below. 3. Today, both the parties are present in Court and advance their rival submissions. 4. The case of the Complainant is that she had married the petitioner no. 1 on 11.3.2003 and, thereafter, had gone to live with her inlaws in Jamalpur but she was tortured for ends of dowry on account of which the Complainant’s father paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused persons. Thereafter, the Complainant is said to have gone to Delhi to live with her inlaws but she was not treated well on account of which she fell ill and then her father came to Delhi and took her back to Bhagalpur. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was married to the Complainant on 11.3.2003 but the entire story of torture for ends of dowry is nothing but an effort to screen herself from the actions taken by the petitioner no. 1 against her. 6. Fact of the matter is that when the Complainant came to live with the petitioner No. 1 and rest of the family in Delhi, the accused persons learnt that she was pregnant and was, therefore, taken to a Diagnostic Centre where it was revealed that she was carrying pregnancy from before the marriage. At this, the parents of the Complainant were 3 summoned to Delhi and in their presence, the further Ultrasound was done which also revealed the age of foetus more than the duration of marriage of the Complainant to the petitioner no. 1 on account of which the parents of the Complainant took her back to Bhagalpur and since then she was living there. 7. Since the petitioner no. 1 did not wish to continue the matrimonial relationship with the Complainant, he filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 12(1)(d) of Hindu Marriage Act, on 23.7.2003. 8. Notices were sent to the Complainant on 6.8.2003 and 11.9.2003 as also 18.9.2003 but she refused to appear before the court concerned. 9. During the pendency of the divorce case, the petitioner no. 1 also sent a registered notice to the Complainant not to terminate her pregnancy since it was a vital proof of the reason for annulment of marriage. The submission is that after an action was taken by the petitioner no. 1, the present complaint has been filed on 12.9.2003. 10. It is note worthy that the Complainant despite notice, did not appear in the divorce proceeding and the court concerned after taking evidence of the petitioner no. 1 and the Medical Practitioner and Technicians who testified the victim’s pregnancy even before the date of marriage decreed in favour of the petitioner No. 1. 4 11. The opposite party no. 2 has merely stated that no submission can be made on the developments which took place but I am not ready to accept this proposition since notices were sent to the opposite party no. 2 way back of 17.8.2004 and no rebuttal is forthcoming on any of the facts placed before this Court by the petitioners. 12. Considering that the complaint is nothing but in abuse of the process of the Court, in the background of the case, I am of the view that the application should be allowed. 13. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No. 1263 of 2003 by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners and the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Cr. Rev. No. 229 of 2004 dismissing the application are hereby quashed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 20th July, 2010 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)