AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 668 C of 2018 dated 01.09.2018 instituted under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
Earlier, by order dated 16.10.2019, the Court had referred the matter to the District Mediation Centre, Kishanganj. However, the learned Mediator
while submitting his final report dated 26.11.2019 had stated that the parties were called and Mediation efforts were carried out on 25.11.2019 and
26.11.2019. From what has been stated, it appears that the petitioner had a non cooperative attitude in the Mediation as he has flatly denied taking of
any responsibility on the plea that he himself is not keeping well. Accordingly, the Mediation has failed.
In view thereof, the Court has heard the parties on merits.
The allegation against the petitioner and nine others is of mental and physical torture, abuse, assault, demand of dowry and snatching of gold ear
rings worth Rs. 20,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus and that he is still ready to keep his wife-opposite party
no. 2 and their three children with him.
Learned APP submitted that besides the petitioner torturing and turning out the wife of the matrimonial home, along with the three children, he has
also not bothered to maintain her.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the petitioner had broken his leg and with help of the brother of the opposite party no. 2,
the treatment was done and later on, the complainant was badly beaten up due to which her hand was fractured. It was further submitted that the
petitioner also does not contribute in any way to the upbringing of their three children. Learned counsel submitted that before the Mediation also,
primarily due to non cooperative attitude of the petitioner, Mediation has failed and the plea before the Court today that the petitioner is ready to keep
his wife and children with him is farcical and without bona fide.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
The interim protection given to the petitioner by order dated 16.10.2019, stands vacated.