Satyajeet Bhagat vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard the parties.

The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 01.06.2015 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 42/15 by the learned Session Judge, Sitamarhi whereby the learned judge has dismissed the petition of the petitioner against cognizance as well as the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi in Batnaha P.S. Case No. 100/14, G.R. No. 1042/14 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance U/s 323, 498(A) IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and ordered to be issuance of summon against the petitioner.

Crux of the story is that, a compliant case was filed by the complainant Nutan Kumari against her husband Satyajeet Bhagat (petitioner) and other accused persons has named in the complaint petition. The informant made allegation in the complaint petition that she was married to the petitioner on 14.11.2013 in Janki Mandir, Sitamarhi according to Hindu rights and custom. When the informant went to her sasural where two lakh rupees cash and one motorcycle was demanded by the accused persons but the parents of the informant refused for same. There after the informant was tortured by the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of their demand.

Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate send this matter for proper investigation, by exercising its power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for registering FIR and investigation, whereafter police submitted charge-sheet against petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 323, 498(A) I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act exonerating other accused persons. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance against petitioner accordingly for the aforesaid offences.

It is further submitted that the petitioner who is working in Railway is being harassed by informant/ O.P. No. 2 on regular basis for one or another reason. It is pointed out that petitioner is working in Railway. It is submitted that the marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with petitioner subsisting her first marriage with one Arun Kr. Chaudhary and she was pregnant out of said marriage, but concealing all such facts she solemnized her marriage with this petitioner. It is submitted that when this matter came to the knowledge of this petitioner he filed a case before learned family court, Sitamarhi for declaration of his marriage as null and void. Learned Family Court, Sitamarhi considering all available evidence on record through Matrimonial Case No. 286 of 2014, CIS (Reg) No. 15 of 2014 vide order dated 06.02.2023 declared the marriage of this petitioner with O.P. No. 2 null and void and same was accordingly dissolved.

It is further pointed out that one allegation was also raised by O.P. No. 2 through separate complaint petition filed before learned CJM, Sitamarhi that the learned family court in aforesaid Matrimonial case, read the forged marriage certificate in support of previous marriage of O.P. No. 2 and obtained decree accordingly, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2024. It is also submitted that aforesaid Matrimonial case was challenged before learned Division Bench of this Court, which was also dismissed in want of the prosecution.

Beside aforesaid, it is also submitted by learned counsel that the allegation as raised against petitioner qua committing physical and mental cruelty is appearing very much general and omnibus in nature and same was raised through complaint petition which not appears supported by affidavit, in view of legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015 (6) SCC 287].

Learned counsel for the informant could not disputed the aforesaid factual submissions, however, it is submitted that for the restoration of Matrimonial appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court, MJC petition has already been filed which is pending and, therefore, it can be said safely that the order as passed in Matrimonial Case No. 286 of 2014 not attend its finality.

Let it be so, considering the nature of allegation qua committing cruelty which is appearing very general and omnibus in nature qua petitioner, and, further as the allegations which was raised before learned CJM, Sitamarhi not appears supported by affidavit contrary to the legal ratio as settled through Priyanka Srivastava case (supra), accordingly the order of cognizance and also the order as passed in Cr. Rev. No. 42/15 is hereby set aside/ quashed qua, petitioner with all its consequential proceedings.

Hence, this application stands allowed.

TCR, if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment.