PRAMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners herein who happen to be the married sisters -in -law (nanads) of the complainant and have been arrayed as accused alongwith others in Complaint Case No. 1120 of 1999 are aggrieved by and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 2.2.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, whereby he has rejected their petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE complainant, one Lily Kumari, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint case inter alia stating that her marriage with Manoj Kumar Gupta was solemnized on 14.5.1997 whereat costly gifts including gold and silver ornaments, brass and steel utensils, furnitures etc. worth Rs. 1,20,000/ - was given and prior to the marriage on the occasion of tilak ceremony apart from gifts for the bridegroom, a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/ - was allegedly handed over to Hari Prasad, the father of the bridegroom, in the presence of his family members of which a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ - was to be kept in a joint account of Manoj and Lily and the balance amount was earmarked for purchasing ornaments and nousehold articles for Lily and towards travel expenses but the same were not invested as stipulated and had instead been retained by the accused. It is also alleged that at the time of bidai on 15.5.1999 accused Hari Prasad had suggested that since the times was dangerous, Lily should not travel to her sasural wearing her ornaments and that the same should be carried separately. Finding the suggestions solicitous the parents of the complainant handed over all her ornaments to Hari Prasad who had not returned the same to her till now. It is alleged that on arrival at the sasural Lily because of her dark colour, was taunted by her mother -in -law and the two nanads in the presence of the neighbours and the other accused only added fuel to the fire and from that very day itself she was subjected to cruelty in various ways and means. It is also alleged that she would not even be provided with a cup of tea until and unless all her household chores including the feeding of the cattle were completed and insignificant faults by her would result in abuse and assault by the mother -in -law and the nanads. She was forced to work even when she was sick and on one occasion she was even administered poison and consequently hospitalized. Thereafter it is said that her father took her back to the naiher on condition that she would return in ten days ' time failing which dire consequences would follow. It is alleged that after the complainant returned to her sasural she was not allowed to talk to her parents on phone and a demand for a Yamaha motorcycle was made and It was only after Rs. 44,000/ - was paid to Hari Prasad that she was allowed to talk to her parents on the phone even as her being subjected to cruelty continued unabated. It is alleged that even after the complainant conceived she was not taken to a Doctor for check up nor any attention was paid to her fooding and she was subjected to further cruelty. When she attempted to inform her father, the telephone wires were damaged whereupon she sent information through letter. Her brother was sent to fatch up and at the time of Bidai she was told not to come back if she gave birth to a girl child. It is further said that on 6.10.1988 a girl child was born following a caesarean operation but none from her sasural including her husband came to see her and the child. It is further said that in April, 1999 after much reasoning the complainant 'shusband came to Bhagalpur and took her to sasural where the other accused persons objected to her entry wIthin. When she finally entered, her dewar, Munna, assaulted her wIth fists and slaps and the mother - in -law and nanads pushed her out. The people of the neighbourhood on hearing her cries intervened and she was permItted to enter the marItal home and the old story was again reIterated. Several other instances of cruelty have been narrated.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners, that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and although they had preferred Criminal Misc. No. 12832 of 2001 against the order taking cognizance, the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2002. It has further been submitted that the husband was ready to keep the complainant with full honour and dignity but she was neither interested nor desirous of living with her husband. Accordingly, the husband had filed Matrimonial Suit No. 227 of 2004 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna for restitution of conjugal rights which was eventually decreed ex parte with direction to Lily Kumari to resume her conjugal relationship with her husband, Manoj Kumar Gupta, and prior thereto he had -filed a petition in the instant complaint case on 30.5.2003 to the effect that he was ready to keep his wife with all honour and dignity and in reply the complainant had stated that she did not want to live with her husband on the basis whereof the petitioner 'spetition was rejected.