SAHDEO SURANE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 26-3-1996 through which cognizance of the offence has been taken as against the petitioner in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1041/95 that is C.R. Case No. 4515/95 and pending in the Court of Shri R.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

(2.) The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that the petitioner is an employee of Central Government and working as Deputy Director. Mines Safety, Dhanbad at the relevant time and his wife was also living at Bhagalpur and the O.P. No. 2 was her maid servant. It has been alleged that the informant used to come to Dhanbad along-with wife of petitioner and the main accused Samu Murmu who was also working as Junior Engineer in Colliery was living in the same campus occupied by the petitioner and the accused. Samu Murmu developed intimacy and Samu gave an assurance to the informant that he will marry her and established sexual relationship; due to that the informant became pregnant. Subsequently the matter was reported to the petitioner then the petitioner became annoyed and turned her out and after that the main accused Samu Murmu married her in a temple and kept her as his wife but subsequently began to torture her and demanding dowry and then deserted her. So this case was instituted against this petitioner and the main accused Samu Murmu under Section 498-A1 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under the Prohibition of Dowry Act.

(3.) On perusal of the entire F.I.R. and case diary it appears that the main allegation is as against Samu Murmu who gave assurance to the victim girl and established sexual relationship resulted in pregnancy and the relationship continued without any knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner was informed about the pregnancy later on by the victim girl and then the only fault levelled against the petitioner that he did not help the girl rather turned her out from the employment and then the victim girl married the main accused. Samu Murmu who subsequently began to torture her and demanding dowry. So the illicit relationship was not to the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner has also not made any demand of dowry and the main accused which is definitely Samu Murmu. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he was not sympathetic to the girl. When the matter was reported to him by the victim girl herself. But that itself do not bring the petitioner within the purview of Prohibition of Dowry Act or under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. So in any view of the matter, practically no criminal case is made but as against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the order of taking cognizance dated 26-3-1996 passed in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1041/95 is hereby quashed so far as petitioner is concerned but the case will proceed as against the main accused Samu Murmu. Petition allowed.