LAWS(PAT)-2011-1-30

RAM ASHRAY RAUT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 17, 2011
RAM ASHRAY RAUT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed on behalf of three petitioners who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the alleged victim girl. A complaint case was filed alleging that the petitioners had demanded dowry and had thrown out the victim lady out of the house. When the petitioners came to know about the complaint case being filed against them, they too filed a complaint case praying therein that the opposite party no. 2 should be punished for filing a false case against the petitioners since the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 were never married at any point of time. The matter was sent for institution of a First Information Report and after enquiry it transpires that the petitioner no. 1 had not married the complainant of Case No. 422 of 2000. However, before enquiry report could be received in the Court below, cognizance was taken in Complaint Case No. 422 of 2000 on 22.6.2000. The petitioners had filed an application for withdrawing the cognizance taken against them. The Court below after acknowledging that there was an enquiry showing that the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 were not married, did not have the power to recall his earlier order and observed that the facts and the evidence will be considered at the appropriate stage. THIS court had issued several notices to the opposite party no. 2. However, nobody has appeared to represent her.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party no. 2 has now remarried and is living happily with her husband. It is stated that several years have elapsed and the petitioner no. 1 is perhaps also now married and no useful purpose will be served in pursuing this matter any further. It does appear that opposite party no. 2 has lost interest in the case. However, in absence of opposite party no. 2, this Court cannot pass any positive order in favour of the petitioners. The facts raised by the petitioners prima facie raise doubt with respect to the factum of marriage between the parties. The Court below at the time of considering the charges will consider this aspect and if the complainant fails to appear for two to three days after notice, the Court should take appropriate steps in the case and not keep the matter pending for appearance of the complainant in view of the fact that it appears that she has lost interest in the case.