AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.K. Sinha, J.—The petitioners have preferred this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them in connection with complaint case vide C.P. Case No. 277 of 2003 including the order dated 24.2.2004 passed by S.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1th Class, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was taken.
Pursuant to the notice issued by this court, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 Neera Devi.
The brief fact of the case is that complainant Nira Devi/opposite party No. 2 was married to the petitioner No. l in 1991 and father of opposite party No. 2 had spent according to his capacity- After marriage, the complainant went to her matrimonial home and out of wedlock a son as well as a daughter were born to them. It is alleged that the husband as well as in-laws (petitioner) started perpetrating torture to her since 1997 and demanded Rs. 50,000/- to be brought from her parental home. When the amount could not be paid to them, they stopped her food and cloth and she was confined to a room. However, Rs. 20,000/- was arranged by her father and that in spite of receiving such amount, they were not satisfied and each then her miseries continued. She was finally ejected from her matrimonial home with her children in the year 1997 and since then she was living in her parental house. It was further alleged that in the year 1998 her husband petitioner No. l came to her parental house with a dagger in his hand but by the intervention of the mahallah people, he returned back. Again in the night of 10.4.2002 her husband, father-in-law with one unknown person came to her parental house, broke open the door and her husband pointed out a dagger on her neck whereas the unknown person intimidated her with a pistol and threatened but on the arrival of the mahallah people they escaped extending threat that they would not be spared. When the case was not instituted at the police station on information, her father informed the Superintendent of Police and finally a complaint case was lodged in the court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that at no point of time any demand by way of dowry was made either to the opposite party No. 2 or to her parent and the allegation of ill-treatment or abuse to her is false and fabricated. On the behest of the father of opposite party No. 2 Bidagiri was executed on 1.3.1999 and after three months, a female child was born to her. It is stated that petitioner No. l attempted at several occasions to bring her wife ( complainant) back from her parental house but it was refused consistently. As a matter of fact, complainant''s parent quite unexpectedly and without unreasonable cause declined Bidagiri of the complainant with the petitioner No. l on the flimsy and invented ground that the income of the petitioner No. l was not sufficient to maintain the complainant. Since the petitioner had no other alternative, he filed an application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the court of the District Judge, Bokaro, which was numbered as Matrimonial Case No. 33 of 2002. It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that father of the complainant earlier brought about a Complaint Case, vide C.P.Case No. 72 of 2002 against the petitioners with an intention to frustrate the matrimonial case but it was dismissed against which a revision was preferred and it was also dismissed. The present case was brought about by the complainant wife for the similar allegation under Sections 498, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code which is bad in law which has occasioned substantial failure of justice.
On the other hand, the complainant opposite party No. 2 has categorically supported her case in the counter affidavit filed by her and supported the order impugned whereby cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners. It has been stated that reconciliation was initiated on behalf of her father to resolve the issues but the petitioner reiterated the demand of dowry and they subjected the complainant to cruelty. A number of letters and copies have been annexed in support of the allegation against the petitioner and others which corroborates the bitter relation between the husband and wife and the demand of two items which have not been disclosed as to its nature. The copies of such letters sent by the husband petitioner to the wife complainant are the part of counter affidavit.
From perusal of the entire facts as well as materials on record this Court finds that order of the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P.Case No. 277 of 2003, vide order dated 24.2.2004 does not call for any interference of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that this is not a fit case for quashing of the entire prosecution as against the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.