BAIDEHI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.2.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.534 (C) of 2006 by learned Sub Divisio9nal Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is peculiar case, in which petitioner no.1 was firstly kidnapped by the complainant, i.e. Opp.Party no.2 and forcibly got married with his daughter, namely, Anila Devi.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.534(C) of 2006 against both the petitioners and other eleven persons on an accusation of committing offences under Sections 420,406, 498A, 120B, 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that the marriage of petitioner no.2 was solemnized with the daughter of the complainant on 17.5.2004 and after marriage she was kept for about a week and subsequently, she was ousted from the house of her in-laws. It was alleged in the complaint petition that for the purposes of settling the marriage, accused persons had taken about Rs. 4 Lacs as advance and they were further demanding Rs.3 lacs and due to non-fulfilment, the daughter of the complainant was ousted from the house of her in-laws. She was also assaulted by the accused persons. Accordingly, it was alleged that the accused persons cheated the complainant by way of taking Rs.4 Lacs and subsequently, they had committed offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint petition, six witnesses were examined during the enquiry of the case including the victim girl, Smt. Anila Kumari. After conducting enquiry, learned Magistrate by the impugned order, i.e. order dated 13.2.2007 has taken cognizance of offences as mentioned above.

(3.) BESIDES hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have minutely perused the materials available on record. After going through Annexure-2, i.e. a copy of the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in T.R.No.799 of 2007, it is evident that the allegation against the complainant for kidnapping petitioner no.2 was finally proved during full fledged trial and thereafter the complainant of the present case was convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The falsity of the present complaint is further corroborated in view of the fact that in the complaint petition itself, the complainant has asserted that after the solemnization of marriage on 17.5.2004, his daughter remained for a week in her in-laws house and thereafter she was ousted. Meaning thereby that whatever offence was committed was committed within a week from the date of marriage, i.e. 17.5.2004. However, the present complaint was filed after a long delay i.e. on 14.7.2006. It is also evident from the Judgment of the trial court that the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 was held guilty for kidnapping the petitioner no.2.