ANIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused, Anil Kumar Singh has filed instant petition for quashing of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 298 of 2009 registered under Sections 498A, 386 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act instituted on the basis of Complaint Petition No. 530 of 2009 filed by O.P. No. 2, Silpi Chauhan as directed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. On account of marital discord Silpi Chauhan O.P. No. 2 who (did not appear during pendency of instant petition) filed complaint petition against her husband Anil Kumar, the petitioner, father-in-law, mother-in-law detailing the events which she faced attracting application of penal law which was sent to the P.S. concerned for registration and investigation of the case as a result of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 298 of 2009 has been registered under Sections 498A, 386 of the I.P.C., and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that whatever allegation has been levelled, appears to be vexatious, cryptic and has been levelled with mala fide intention in revengeful manner only to harass the petitioner along with his family members. Then submitted that in spite of having the case registered on 7.5.2009, uptil now charge-sheet has not been submitted. The conduct of the investigating authority clearly suggests that he has gone in camp of opposite party No. 2. Then submitted that instant case has been filed after filing of divorce case by the petitioner bearing No. 246 of 2009. Further to discredit the allegation of cruelty, it has been submitted that even before institution of the case, petitioner had deposited money in the account of O.P. No. 2 and for that placed relevant counterfoil. Also submitted that during course of hearing of bail petition of father-in-law and mother-in-law, the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi vide order dated 11.6.2009 passed in B.P. No. 661 of 2009 has held that no specific case of cruelty is made out against them. Also submitted that O.P. No. 2 was coerced by her parents to marry with the petitioner although she was in love with other and aforesaid theme was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner by the O.P. No. 2 herself and to support the same letters have been filed vide Annexures 2 and 3 written by O.P. No. 2 and so submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is fit case wherein FIR should be quashed invoking the provision under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) At the other hand the learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that till today it has not been disclosed by the petitioner whether he has obtained bail. Then submitted that whatever facts have been placed, those are to be scrutinized during trial as happens to be factual one and its veracity cannot be tested at the present even to the extent of investigation is allowed to conclude. Further submitted that petitioner should be before the investigating authority with the aforesaid documents so that its genuineness could be ascertained. As such, the prayer of the petitioner in the aforesaid background is not at all maintainable.