SANJANA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 7 This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Kotwali PS. Case No. 553 of 1999 (Annexure -6) arising out of Complaint Case No. 827 -C of 1999 lodged by respondent No. 8 against the petitioners and one Rameshwar Prasad Rahi, son of late Raghuvir Prasad.

(2.) The mother of the petitioners, Bebi Devi filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Maintenance Case o. 17/90 against respondent No. 8 claiming maintenance for herself as legally married wife of respondent No. 8 and that the petitioner being the daughter and son born in the wedlock. Respondent No. 8 contested the case and denied the relationship of husband and wife to one Bebi Devi and himself and also the birth of the child. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Munger had rejected the claim of Bebi Devi. She along with the petitioners came up in Cr. Revision No. 36/94 before this Court. During the pendency of that Revision petition, Bebi Devi died and the case continued by the petitioners regarding their claim of maintenance. Vide Annexure -1, a Bench of this Court had disposed of the Revision Petition setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate of Munger holding that Bebi Devi was the wife of respondent No. 8 and granted maintenance to the petitioners holding them to be the daughter and son of the respondent No.. As the Petitioner No. 1 had already attained majority and the Petitioner No. 2 was to attain majority in near future, specific orders were passed by the Bench in the Revision Petition that the maintenance amount due to the Petitioner No. 1 during the date of her minority and that of Petitioner No. 2 regarding arrear should be deposited in a nationalized Bank Account to be opened in the name of the petitioners and the employer of the respondent No. 8, who was made a party and direction was given to get the amount deducted from the salary and other emoluments of respondent No. 8 to be deposited in the Account of the petitioners. A cost of Rs. 30,000/ - had also been awarded against respondent No. 8. There was also observation for proceeding against respondent No. 8, departmentally for bigamy. Respondent No. 8, against the order passed in the Revision Petition, moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3059 of 1999 and prayed for stay of the orders passed by this Court but stay was grated only in respect of departmental proceeding and not against the order of maintenance passed in favour of the petitioners and other direction given regarding relaisation of the same and deposit in the Bank Account. Accordingly the petitioners jointly opened an Account at Jamui Central Co -operative Bank Limited, Munger being Savings Bank Account Nos. 4395 and 4399 respectively but as the said Bank was not a nationalized Bank then again Savings Bank Account Nos. 6128 and 6129 have been opened in the nationalized Bank i.e. Syndicate Bank, Munger Branch and the matter was reported to the Chief Works Manager, Jamalpur Railway Workshop and the respondent No. 8 had to deposit the amounts but it was not done rather respondent No. 8 filed a complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 827 -C of 1999 on 21 -12 -1999 against the petitioners and one Rameshwar Prasad Rahi under Sections 465/467/468/471/420/384/504/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the petitioners i.e. accused persons as per the complaint case in conspiracy had affixed photograph of Rajiv Rahi in place of Ashish Kumar Aman in order to grab the money of respondent No. 8 and respondent No. 8 on 14 -12 -1999 intimated the Bank about the same and when such intimation was given then the petitioners along with other accused persons reached to the quarters of respondent No. 8, abused him and prepared a hand note of Rs. One lac from respondent No. 8 at the point of pistol. The said complaint petition was referred to Kotwali Police Station and Kotwali P.S. Case No. 553/99 was registered and according to the petitioners since the registration of the case the police officials i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were making harassment to the petitioners.

(3.) The main dispute as it appears is regarding opening up of the Bank Account in the name of Rajiv Rahi without mentioning the name of Ashish Kumar Aman in the Bank Account. It is the contention of the petitioners that Rajiv Rahi and Ashish Kumar Aman are the same person and as guardian of Ashish Kumar Aman @ Rajiv Rahi, the petitioner No. 1 being the elder sister had opened the Account and she is the person who is to see the welfare of petitioner No. 2. Although in the lower Courts the cases was fought as Ashis Kumar Aman as the son of respondent No. 8 but that he has been named as Rajiv Rahi also has been admitted by the respondent No. 8 when he got the name aliasly recorded in the S.L.P. itself before the Supreme Court. From the facts and circumstances it appears that only not to pay the amounts as ordered by this Court in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr. PC. such a plea has been taken by the respondent No. 8 and the petitioners, who are definitely helpless in the society and having lost their mother during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and not being looked after by their father are being harassed on filing of the criminal case. If he respondent No. 8 had any such grievance regarding the fake Account No. etc. he could have brought it to the notice before the apex Court as the matter is totally in revision of the apex Court now but instead a criminal case has been filed, definitely with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners and make gain out of it by not paying the amounts as ordered by this Court. It is submitted for and on behalf of the petitioners that this criminal case has been filed only with an ulterior motive to frustrate the orders of this Court and the police or the Court below ought not to have entertained such petition. When respondent No. 8 was summoned in this writ petition, he did not appear to support his contention as per the complaint petition or the F.I.R. itself which very well shows that conduct of the respondent No. 8 and reinforces the grievances of the petitioners that the criminal case filed is nothing but to harass the petitioners to frustrate the legal orders passed by this Court.