Ramesh Pandey @ Naga Pandey and Others vs The State of Bihar and Another

Shivaji Pandey, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press this petition on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 who is the husband of the prosecutrix/O.P. No. 2.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn against the petitioner No. 2.

In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 12th January, 2011 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara has taken cognizance in Badahara P.S. Case No. 170 of 2010 for offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Trial No. 4088 of 2011.

The allegation has been made by the brother of the victim lady in First Information Report that Radha Devi was married to Deomurat Pandey (husband/petitioner No. 2) in the year 2000. Family members of the husband were teasing and torturing her sister for last five years. On fateful day i.e. 30.6.2010 the O.P. No. 2 alongwith his brother, namely, Raju Ranjan Upadhyay and Rishi Ranjan Upadhyay went to matrimonial house of her sister alongwith their sister. Ramesh Pandey @ Naga Pandey (petitioner No. 1), Deomurat Pandey (petitioner No. 2), Binayak Pandey (petitioner No. 3), Bhular Pandey (petitioner No. 4) and Ganpati Pandey (petitioner No. 5) started abusing the informant side and assaulted with slaps and fists. It has been alleged that Ramesh Pandey @ Naga Pandey gave a blow by the stick, broken the hand of the informant. So far the specific allegation that has been made against Ramesh Pandey @ Naga Pandey (petitioner No. 1) of assault, it is very difficult to interfere with the order of cognizance against petitioner No. 1 at this stage. With regard to the rest petitioners, no specific allegation has been made against them and it appears that all the family members have been roped in the present case. As it is basically a matrimonial dispute no specific allegation against them i.e. Binayak Pandey (petitioner No. 3), Bhular Pandey (petitioner No. 4) and Ganpati Pandey (petitioner No. 5) who are cousin brother of husband so much so that one new fact has emerged in the present case, the prosecutrix/O.P. No. 2 has entered into a 2nd marriage which has been accepted by the other side.

In view of subsequent new development, general and omnibus allegation made against them, it will be futile to allow the prosecution to continue against Binayak Pandey (petitioner No. 3), Bhular Pandey (petitioner No. 4) and Ganpati Pandey (petitioner No. 5) in view of the judgment reported in Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, .

Counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment reported in Neelu Chopra and Another Vs. Bharti, and Ramesh and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, where the Hon''ble Supreme Court interfered in similar facts and situation dealing with the vague allegation was made against accused persons.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order of cognizance dated 12th January, 2011 arising from Badahara P.S. Case No. 170 of 2010 in connection with Binayak Pandey (petitioner No. 3), Bhular Pandey (petitioner No. 4) and Ganpati Pandey (petitioner No. 5) is hereby quashed. With regard to the rest persons, the court below will proceed with the matter but while deciding the case will take into account to subsequent development, as the prosecutrix/O.P. No. 2 herself entered into a 2nd marriage. Accordingly, this petition is allowed partly.