NAVIN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein who has been impleaded as one of the accused in Complaint Case No. 209 (C) of 2002 through this application seeks the quashing of order dated 24.5.2007 passed by Shri Parshuram Shukla, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 310 of 2005 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 20.8.2005 passed by the learned Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in the aforesaid Complaint Case whereunder he has refused to discharge the petitioner.

(2.) ONE Babulal Singh had filed the aforesaid complaint alleging inter alia that his daughter Geeta Devi had been married to the petitioner herein on 22.5.1994 and out of the wedlock a girl child was born and although sufficient articles in gift was given at the time of the marriage, after the birth of the girl child the accused and his family members started assaulting Geeta Devi on petty matters and asked her to bring a motorcycle, a colour T.V. and a refrigerator and when Geeta Devi objected to the same she was tortured and assaulted. It was also alleged that Binod Singh, the brother of the petitioner herein had married thrice only to obtain dowry. It has also been alleged that on 27.7.2001 Navin and his brother Binod assaulted Geeta, snatched her articles and left her and the minor daughter at Rajarani Pond and went away. Subsequently, one Rajendra Yadav brought Geeta and her daughter to the complainant&aposs house. It is said that the complainant made several efforts to persuade Sohan Singh, the father of the petitioner, to take back Geeta to the marital home but on 18.3.2002 both Sohan and Navin categorically refused to take Geeta back to the marital home unless the demand made was fulfilled. The complainant further stated that he had learnt from his daughter that Navin was a characterless person.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , both in the complaint case filed by the petitioner as also in the Matrimonal Suit Geeta Devi had admitted that she wanted the divorce and in fact the divorce had been granted by a competent court. It further appears that the materials available on the record of the case do not indicate that the victim lady had levelled any allegation or reiterated accusation made in the complaint petition nor she had made any complaint of the torture and cruelty that she had allegedly faced at the hands of the accused in her written statement filed in the Title (Matrimonial) Suit.