VAGISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking quashing of an order of cognizance dated 22.03.1997 passed by Shri Ved Prakash, Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Complaint Case No. 541 of 1996.

(2.) THE relevant facts for this miscellaneous case, as per the complaint petition of Raj Kishore Sharma, are to the effect that the complainant had married his daughter Sandhya Kumari on 21st May, 1986 to Vagish Kumar. After marriage, the complainant 'sdaughter went to her Sasural and at the time of marriage, several articles including ornaments, furniture, refrigerator etc. worth rupees 2,54,000/ - were given to the husband 'sfamily. The complainant 's husband 'sfamily became annoyed with the inadequate supply of articles and they started cursing the complainant 'sdaughter for the aforesaid lapse on the part of her father. It was also alleged by the husband 'sfamily that Rs. 2,00,000/ -, as promised, were not paid. The complainant 'sdaughter Sandhaya Kumar came back from her Sasural and then again on 28.05.1986, she was sent to her Sasural on second marriage (Gauna). She lived there for two months in the house of the husband 'sfamily and discharged all her matrimonial home 's duties. However, the son - in -law of the complainant was on a private job which was about to terminate and so he demanded rupees four to five lacs for doing private business. He started laying pressure on his wife to bring the aforesaid amount from her father. The complainant 's daughter and his son -in -law both came to the complainant 'shouse at Samastipur and made a demand of rupees four to five lacs. The complainant expressed his inability to meet the aforesaid demand of the son -in -law. Subsequently, the complainant 'sdaughter was admitted into M.A. Classes and she was kept in a Girls Hostel at Muzaffarpur by the family of her sasural and throughout she was being pressed for bringing rupees four to five lacs. However, when this amount was not paid by the complainant, his daughter was refused the expenses to be borne by his daughter in the Hostel towards studies. Then the complainant, under compulsion, started bearing her expenditures. The complainant 'sdaughter used to go to the house of her husband on her own accord but she was always ill -treated and the demand of rupees four to five lacs were still persisted. Ultimately, the complainant 'sdaughter was deserted by her husband and his family members and her property, which were gifted to her at the time of marriage, were usurped. In the year, 1987, in the month of May, the complainant and his daughter both went to meet Vagish Kumar in Nepal and they found that the husband was in the company of a Nepali girl. When a protest was lodged in this connection, Vagish Kumar misbehaved with the complainant and his daughter and humiliated them. In the year, 1991, on the occasion of the death of mother of Vagish Kumar, the complainant sent his son to the Sasural of his daughter but the son was also humiliated and insulted and sent back. The family of the complainant 'sson -in -law kept on demanding rupees four to five lacs in order to take back his daughter then the complaint was filed.

(3.) SO far question whether the offence under section 498A, I.P.C. was time barred, it has to be examined whether an offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. refers to physical tortures only. The wordings in Section 498A, I.P.C. refers to cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives. This cruelty has been explained thus ''