GITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as 'the Code') has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.12.2004 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 1999 corresponding to G.R. No. 802/1999/ Tr. No. 1869/05, by which he took cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. There is also prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 10.7.2009 informant Kabita Devi filed a written report before the Officer Incharge of Nawanagar Police Station that she was married to Anjani Kumar Singh of Village-Kulahawa P.S.-Dumraon, District- Bhojpur in the year 1995 in which her father had given Rs. 50,000/- in cash and ornaments including other articles worth Rs. 50,000/- more. After second marriage (Gauna) which took place one year after marriage she came to Village-Kulahawa. In the year 1998 she gave birth to a male child. It is alleged that after two years of marriage her husband and members of his family changed their behaviour. She was assaulted at times. Accused started abusing and torturing her. It is further alleged that the accused persons asked her father to purchase one second hand Maruti Van but her father could not provide the same and due to that on 22.3.1999 she was assaulted and ousted from the house. Accused persons however kept her child with them. She came to her Naihar and narrated the incident to her parents. Her father went to settle the matter but in vain. On the basis of written report of the informant the Police registered Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 46/1999 and after concluding investigation, submitted final report in favour of the petitioner and others, except husband of the informant namely Anjani Kumar Singh. It appears that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 4.12.2004 took cognizance under Section 498A of the Penal Code against non- charge-sheeted accused also. Against the said order of cognizance the petitioner has preferred the present application before this Court.

(3.) SECTION 473 of the Code, therefore confers power on the Court taking cognizance after expiry of period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained and that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. Interest of justice always demands that the Court should protect the oppressed and punish the offender. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate did not take note of SECTION 473 of the code while taking cognizance.