SARJU PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are directed against the order dated 18.3.94, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishan -ganj, in Complaint Case No.431 of 1993, whereby cognizance of the alleged offences have been taken under sections 323, 406 and 498A IPC, and the petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial. Both the quashing petitions arise out of the same impugned order and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the petition of complaint, the complainant (OP No.2 herein) was married to accused No.1, Gautam Sinha (the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 7776 of 1994), according to the Hindu rites on 10.6.92 at Kishanganj. Accused No.2, Sarju Prasad Sinha, and accused no.3, Smt. Lakhi Sinha, wife of Sarju Prasad Sinha, are the father and mother respectively of the aforesaid Gautam Sinha (and are petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in Cr. Misc. No. 5870 of 1994). The petitioners are residents of Patna and had taken the barat party to Kishanganj where the parents of OP No. 2 live. Soon after the barat had arrived at Kishanganj, the petitioners and others started complaining about the low -key reception given to them. After some problems, the marriage was solemnized in the night of 10.6.92, and the barat returned to Patna the following day. According to the further allegations, the parents of OP No. 2 had given golden jewelleries, silver jewelleries, clothes, utensils, bed, etc. as marriage gifts to OP No.2. A cash sum of Rs. 61,000/ - was also given to her for purchase of VCR, colour TV, washing machine, bedroom furnitures for the newly -married couple, etc., but the parents of Gautam Sinha have arrogated the entire cash and never purchased the items for which the money had been given. The parents of Gautam Sinha as well as his sister and other relatives kept on complaining to O.P. No.2 about the poor quality of gift items given to them and mentally torturing her. 2.1. According to the further allegations, after some time the in -laws of OP No.2 started physically torturing her, and the mental torture continued unabated. The in -laws started telling her that they had not got a wife for their son, but a maid and she will get the same treatment, and will never be allowed to go to her father's place. Gautam Sinha tortured O.P. No.2 mentally and physically while sharing the bed with her. The situation reached a head and the complainant started thinking in terms of suicide. She also apprehended danger to her life at the instance of the petitioners. 2.2. According to the further allegations, the parents and a relative of OP No. 2 visited her sasural at Patna on 21.6.92. The petitioners herein said that OP No. 2 cannot be allowed to go to her parents ' place and demanded that either the gifts should be replaced by quality items or a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs be given. They were severely insulted and turned out of the house with the words that they should forget that their daughter is still alive. 2.3. According to the further allegations, the final phase of cruelty commenced when OP No. 2 was subjected to unbearable torture, was being kept in a locked room, was not allowed to meet outsiders or write letters to her parents, and at times assaulted her. She also, overheard the accused persons conspiring to do away with the life of the complainant. Finding her life in danger, she went to the house of one Ramanand Prasad, a retired DSP living close -by, on 1.8.92, who took her to one Sadanand Das, her close relative, and both of them had brought her to Kishanganj, where her injuries were treated by a doctor. 2.4. According to the further allegations, the petitioners went over to Kishanganj on 1.8.93 and visited the parents of OP No. 2 and told her that she should persuade her parents to give a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners. On her unwillingness to convey it to her parents, the petitioners slapped her in her own house at Kishanganj and dashed her against the wall causing injuries.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations of torture are quite vague and no case is made out. He also submitted that the complaint petition has been filed after a delay of more than one year. He further submitted that it is a malicious prosecution against the petitioners, and is by way of retaliation to the divorce proceedings. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 Lal vs. State of Haryana), as well as AIR 1998 SC 128 (M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Judicial Magistrate). He lastly submitted that the present prosecution is to harass the petitioners and is going to be a futile prosecution. It is now admitted at all hands that the marriage between the complainant and accused no.1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the latter has already married. He has, in fact, married for the third time, the second wife having died on account of burn injuries.