SHAMBHU PRASAD @ SHAMBHU RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed for quashing order dated 18.2.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Revision No. 287 of 2013, by which he has affirmed order dated 24.9.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Munger dismissing petitioner?s discharge petition in Complaint Case No. 824C/2005.

(2.) The aforesaid complaint has been filed by one Gita Devi, wife of the petitioner stating that she was married to him on 12.5.1999 following the Hindu Rites and Customs whereafter she started living at her in-laws? house at Garhara. At the time of marriage her father had given some articles to the petitioner and his parents. She alleges that after sometime the accused persons including the petitioner started torturing her on non-fulfillment of dowry. The instant complainant filed a complaint case which gave rise to lodging of the FIR/GR Case no. 1129 of 2002 in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger. By practicing fraud, the petitioner along with other accused persons allured the father of the complainant to arrive at a compromise in the said GR case. It is the further case of the complainant that for some time, things were normal as her father was trying to arrange a job of "Khalasi" in the Railways for Accused no.1 (husband). After some time, when his job became permanent and when the complainant could not bear a child, all the accused persons started subjecting her to torture for fetching dowry. On 21.8.2004, attempts of the father of the complainant to pacify the situation prevailing at Garhara went futile, and he took her to his house at Jamalpur. The complainant has alleged that in the changed situation when her father went to the office of Accused no. 1 (the petitioner), he learnt that in his service record he had entered a different name in the column of wife i.e., Jailata Devi, which is the nick name of the complainant as also the name of sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the petitioner (the accused). He also learnt that the petitioner has entered the names Sunil Kumar, Kamla Kumari and Radhika Kumari as his son and daughters, whereas they are his nephew and niece. When the father of the complainant came to know of the said fraud played by the petitioner (the husband) he objected on which Accused no.1 along with his father came to her "Maika" and abused and assaulted the complainant as well as her father. These events led to lodging of the complaint Case No. 824C of 2005. In the said complaint, cognizance was taken and it is in this case that the petitioner had moved for discharge.

(3.) Since the proceedings arising out of the complaint case, GR Case No.1129 of 2002 culminated into compromise and the proceedings had been closed, the petitioner has assailed the initiation of the criminal proceeding by filing second complaint, i.e., Complaint case No. 824C/2005 in respect of the same offence by filing a petition for discharge under section 245 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Munger. The petitioner has relied upon Section 300 Cr.P.C and prayed for discharge on the ground that he could not have been prosecuted twice for the same offence. He had also submitted that the allegations are false since it was not possible for him to cause any alleged occurrence on 10.11.2003 or thereafter as 10.11.2003 was the date of compromise in the earlier criminal case. He had also submitted that since it was the admitted case of the complainant in the Maintenance case filed by her that he was on running duty, so it was not possible to cause any occurrence at the alleged place of occurrence i.e, Garhara, at Begusarai