SADHE PRASAD Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, here-in-after in short the Code, has been filed by the applicant against impugned order dated 22.12.2010 of rejection passed by the learned Additional Upper District Session Judge, Singrouli, by which revision preferred by the applicant for quashing the charge framed against him punishable under Section 500 of the IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Deosar, District Singrouli, has been rejected.

(2.) To understand the say of the applicant Sadhe Prasad clearly we will go back in the year 1980 when Lalita Bai, sister of the respondent Santosh Kumar was married with him. Since 1984 this couple, Sadhe Prasad and Lalita Bai were living separately. Lalita Bai filed an application for maintenance in the year 2000. Thereafter she filed an application under the provisions of Section 127 of the Code, for enhancement amount of maintenance for her daughter Indira before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devsar, District Sidhi. In that proceedings the applicant enters his appearance by filing reply denying the averments made in the application with this fact that Lalita Bai is living in adultery.

(3.) Here the problem crop up, when this maintenance enhancement case was fixed for final arguments on 09.11.2006. Prior to this date, anyhow the applicant came to know this fact that Santosh Kumar and Lalita Bai publicly claiming with proud that the decision will be in their favour, because they regularly visits the house of learned Judicial Magistrate. The applicant shocked to hear this declaration, hence immediately rushed to the Court of competent jurisdiction and filed a transfer application (Annexure D-1) under the provision of Section 410 of the Code. In this transfer application (Annexure D-1) the applicant mentioned following facts, which are root cause of this criminal Litigation reads as under:-