JAI SHANKAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the Petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) In this case, notices were issued to Opposite Party No. 2/the complainant, namely, Suchi Devi. Despite notices served on her, she did not appear to pursue this case. Finally, there was an order for substituted service even after substituted service were affected, Suchi Devi did not appear before this Court.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioners submits that when the matter was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, notices were issued to Suchi Devi. The report which is annexed at Annexure-5 indicates that no person by the name of Suchi Devi, daughter of Ravindra Nath Pandey lived at Sohana Pati, Ward No. 14 of 23. It is further stated that several persons including the Mukhiya has stated that there is no person by the name of Suchi Devi living in the village. This submission has been made in order to indicate that the son-in-law of Petitioners 2 and 3 and brother-in-law of Petitioner No. 1 were witnesses in a case filed by the sister of Petitioner No. 1 against her husband. The husband in revenge has set up a fake person to make the claim that she is the wife of Petitioner No. 1. It is submitted in view of the aforesaid fact that the said Suchi Devi in fact cannot be traced, the case ought to be quashed.