MAHMOOD ALIAS MAHMOOD ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS is an application for quashing Complaint Case No. 630 of 2001 pending in. Araria Court instituted under Sections 498A, 304B and other Sections of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and consequential order taking cognizance against the petitioners. It is submitted that one Md. Murtaza @ Munna who is accused No. 1 in the present case was married to the complainant&aposs daughter, namely, Shahnaz Bano. The complainant resides at Araria and the accused No. 1 resides at Darbhanga. It is pointed out that on 2.5.2001, the complainant lodged a first information report under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 and others Sections of IPC giving rise to Biraul Police Station Case No. 86 of 2001 and it was registered against Md. Murtaza @ Munna. In the said first information report, it was alleged that the informant came to know that his daughter had been killed. He had specifically alleged that it was his son -in -law who had killed his daughter. The said case was investigated and ultimately charge -sheet was submitted against the said Martoz @ Mannu. He was tried and ultimately by judgment and order dated 22.11.2003, he was acquitted.

(3.) IT is first submitted that on the bare reading of the complaint, no role whatsoever is attributed to the petitioners. Petitioners belong to Araria whereas the matrimonial home of the deceased girl was Darbhanga. They are not related to the husband. They have merely been named as accused without any overt act being ascribed to them. In such a situation, it is submitted that their trial would be an abuse of process of Court. It is secondly submitted that for this very incidence, that is the death of the daughter, a substantive first information report has been lodged, investigated, charge -sheet filed, trial conducted in which the husband of deceased girl was acquitted. In the present complaint, the main allegation is only against the husband and the others, at best, come in by virtue of Sec. 120B of IPC. It is thus submitted that once the husband had been acquitted, then Sec. 120B of IPC itself would not be invoked. It is further submitted that in view of Sec. 300 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short "Cr.PC"), the husband could not be tried again and if that be so then the petitioners cannot be put to trial as they derive their liability only through the husband of the deceased.