NAMITA DEVI Vs. DURGESWAR SARMA BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C. ).

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is the daughter-i n-law of the opposite party. Petitioner No. 2 is her brother. By way of this application, they seek quashing of the proceedings in C. R. Case No. 1015/2009 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tezpur.

(3.) Shorn of details, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 married Shri Parag Sarma, son of opposite party in the year 2004. Out of wedlock, a son was born to the couple in the year 2006. Admittedly, there is marital discord between the husband and the wife, the details of which may not be necessary for adjudication of the present case. Suffice it to say, the petitioner No. 1 finally left her matrimonial home at Jamuguri, districtSonitpur on 16-1 2-2008. On reaching her parental house at Nagaon, she instituted C. R. Case No. 3138/2009 u/s 498(A)/406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) before the Criminal Court at Nagaon against her husband and in-laws, which is stated to be pending. Subsequently, she also filed M. R. Case No. 179/2010 u/s 125 Cr. P. C. before the Criminal Court at Nagaon, which is also stated to be pending. Suppressing the fact of pendency of C. R Case No. 3138 of 2009, the opposite party filed a complaint petition on 11- 1 2-2009 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur a t Tezpur against the petitioners. The gist of the complaint is that the opposite party along with one Shri Bogai Das had gone to Nagaon on 03-1 2-2009 to bring back his daughter-i n-law (petitioner No. 1). When th ey reached the house of the petitioners at Nagaon, the petitioners abused them, particularly the opposite party and also assaulted him. They also confined him whereafter the petitioner No. 2 along with seven other persons forcibly took them to the Nagaon Court where their signatures were taken on two stamp papers and on one cartridge paper. They also took away Rs. 3000/- from the opposite party. When they returned to their house at Jamuguri, the opposite party received threatening phone calls from the petitioner No. 1.