Nand Kishore Jaiswal and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Another

D.P. Singh, J.—Heard both the sides at length.

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners, in laws of the complainant-informant Suchita Jaiswal admittedly married with Nand Kishore Jaiswal in June 2001. The dispute between the parties arose on question of some demands made by the petitioners, side. According to leaned counsel for the petitioners all the allegations were false because Suchita did not like to live with them for which a matrimonial case was filed in Madhepura on 16.4.2004, thereafter present complaint was filed on 17.6.2004 in Dhanbad. Therefore the present complaint petition referred to police for investigation by the learned CJM, Dhanbad should be quashed. It is also submitted that this Court has stayed the further proceeding before the Court of CJM arising of this FIR by order dated 20.5.2005.

According to learned Counsels efforts were made for reconciliation by different Benches and the matter was referred to Conciliator appointed by the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. However the parties could not reconcile their differences. Hence this matter is now placed for orders on the point of admission.

Sri P.R. Bhagat learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that the averments made by the petitioners are incorrect and the petition should be dismissed at this stage.

I have gone through the reports of the Conciliator dated 13.4.2007 in which he finally came to conclude that the parties lack of serious efforts to compromise and not interested in restoring harmonious conjugal relationship or dissolving the marriage. In this context a written report by both sides Nand Kishore Jaiswal and Suchita Jaiswal has been annexed which is part of the record now.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to take me through averments made in complaint No. 525 of 2004 filed by one Dinesh Mandal which is beyond my jurisdiction because it is not a part of the record. Learned Counsel for the opposite party averted that in the said complaint case only an information petition was registered as Cr. Misc Case No. 525 of 2004. However after going through the material on record, I do not find that the ends of justice would be served if the investigation is denied. The matter requires though and fare investigation as the allegations are serious, made by the wife of the petitioner No. 1.

I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. petition is dismissed.