SHAMBHU NATH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 237(C) 95 are aggrieved by order dated 6.4.2005 passed by Sri M. Sahu, Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 963 of 2001 by which the revision application of the petitioners has been dismissed as a result of which the order dated 5.11.2001 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna',in the aforesaid complaint case rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been approved and a prayer has been made for quashing of both the orders.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant , impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, she had obtained her B.A. degree in Sociology with Honours and completed a Computer Course whereupon her parents negotiated for her marriage with petitioner No. 3 herein who along with his parents had represented himself as a Intermediate in Chartered Accountancy and had appeared at the final C.A. Examination and on that basis the marriage was solemnized on 22.4.1993 at her native village Jaynagar. It is alleged that on the basis of the false representation the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 had persuaded the parents of the complainant to part with heavy bounty by way of costly valuables in the form of gifts and after persuasion by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 , the complainant traveled to herSasural in Madhubani after performing Duragaman and after a few days in the Sasural the complainant allegedly was mal -treated and tortured by the petitioners and she was compelled to work like a maid servant, abused, taunted and indecent comments were passed against her parents. It is also alleged that she faced threat of violence and ouster from the marital home with the sole motive of compelling her to ask her parents to meet the demands of the petitioners. Instances of gratis help to the petitioners during their visit to Patna have been cited. Eventually on 1.6.1994 after snatching of her personal belongings and valuables she was made to return to her Naiher with her brother who had come to meet her. It is further alleged that subsequently it came to the knowledge of the complainant that her husband was a simple B.Com. and had never studied Chartered Accountancy.

(3.) IT further appears that in view of the police case and the charge not having been framed in Complaint Case No. 237(C) of 1995 the petitioners filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for their discharge but the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 5.11.2001 was pleased to reject the same. Criminal Revision No. 963 of 2001 was filed by the petitioners against the impugned order and the same, as stated above, was also dismissed.