DINESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the petitioners of both the petitions have challenged the same order dtd. 21/1/2016, as such these petitions are being decided together by a common order.

(2.) The instant petitions have been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short 'Cr.P.C.') with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 21/1/2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Complaint Case No. 1391C of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the petitioners.

(3.) The main grounds taken by the petitioners' counsel to assail the order impugned are that against the petitioner, Vikash Kumar, who is the husband of the O.P. No.2 and other petitioners who are in-laws of the said O.P., in the entire complaint, filed by the O.P. No.2, there is no specific allegation regarding the alleged cruelty except against the petitioner No.3, brother-in-law of the husband of O.P. No.2 and regarding the alleged marpit, which is said to have taken place on 29/10/2014, the injury report filed by the complainant before this Court is not reliable as the same has been fabricated by the complainant (O.P. No.2) in collusion with the concerned doctor. The said medical report is contradictory to the alleged miscarriage to the complainant on account of the alleged assault and regarding the other alleged physical tortures, including causing electrocution to the complainant by the petitioner Vishal Kumar there is no any medical evidence, in fact, the complainant (O.P. No.2) did not like her husband as well as her in-laws and never wanted to lead a normal life as a wife with her husband and in-laws. Before the filing of the complaint, an informatory petition had been filed by her husband showing the petitioners' apprehension of being implicated in a false case by the complainant. It has been submitted by petitioners' counsel that the petitioner no.1, Dinesh Prasad, is the father-in-law, petitioner no.2, Pushpalata Devi, is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is brother-in-law and petitioner no.4 is sister-in-law (gotni) of the complainant and on account of the behavior of the complainant, her husband went into depression and became victim of a road accident, for which he was treated at several hospitals and the complainant initially filed a complaint before the S.H.O of Mahila Police Station, Nalanda where an inquiry was conducted by an Assistant Sub- Inspector, a copy of which as Annexure-1 has been filed with these petitions and the same goes to show that the O.P. No.2 (complainant) was not ready to lead a conjugal life with her husband and she put eleven points (demands) in the demand paper before the said ASI as condition for her living in the company of her husband and in-laws and the copy of said demand paper has been filed with these petitions as Annexure-4. It is further submitted that husband of O.P. No.2 has filed a Matrimonial Case No. 296 of 2014 in the Family Court, Nalanda under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but even then the O.P. No. 2 does not want to live with her husband as she is a smart lady working in the ICICI Bank having several boyfriends. It is lastly submitted that the trial court's attitude is also not proper as all the petitioners have been granted the relief of provisional bail several months before by the trial court itself and thereafter, the petitioners have made several attempts before the trial court to get confirm their provisional bail but no attention is being paid and till date no order has been passed on their prayer.