MD.KALIM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 2159(C) of 2005 are aggrieved by and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 16.2.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 498 -A I.P.C. and 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

(2.) THE complainant Majda Khatoon, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia stating that her marriage with accused no. 1, Md. Kalim, was solemnized on 24.3.2005 in Village -Parna within the District of Begusarai where the Dian mehar was fixed at Rs. 5,000/ - and 5 Dirham which was accepted by the husband. It is said that on the following day the complainant went to her sasural in Village -Nazirpur, P.S. - Ujiyarpur in the District of Samastipur and at the time of Bidai her family members bestowed her with various gifts which were handed over to the husband and they travelled together to the matrimonial home. It is alleged that on looking at the gifts the husband became rather dissatisfied as nothing had been gifted to him and demanded that she should ask her mother and brother to provide him with Rs. 1,00,000/ - in cash and if the demand was not met he would contact another marriage. After three days the complainant returned to her naihar where she narrated the happenings in her sasural and she was advised to bear the same and to remain in the sasural following which and with the passage of time situation would settle down to cordiality. The complainant is said to have then returned to her sasural a few days later and found the behaviour of her husband completely changed. He is said to have asked her if she had brought the money from her naiher and when she answered in the negative he became angry and started abusing the complainant and started ill -treating her. Her in -laws also started siding with the husband. It is further alleged that after a few months all the three accused started assaulting the complainant with fists and slaps and misbehaved and ill -treated her and thereby she was subjected to torture, both mental and physical. They also instigated her to commit suicide by taking poison so that the husband could contact another marriage. It is said that in the beginning of 2005 her husband went to Delhi to earn his livelihood and came back on the occasion of Id and these ten months she spent in great disconcert as the behaviour of accused nos. 2 and 3 towards her was rather rude, inhuman and unpalatable and they very often used to abuse and assault her. The attitude and conduct of the husband also did not change on his return from Delhi and he shamelessly told her to commit suicide by taking poison or to give Talak so that he could contact another marriage. It has further been alleged that on 2.11.2005 in the morning she was assaulted severely by her husband on the pretext of excess salt and oil in the vegetable and accused nos. 2 and 3 instead of saving her also participated in the assault and the three accused conjointly dragged the complainant out of the house and wished for her death. She was not permitted to take any of her belongings and notwithstanding her weeping the accused persons did not open the front door whereupon she went to her naiher and narrated her tales of woe. Her naiher people made several attempts to hold panchayati and on the last occasion accused no. 1 with two other persons attended the same where they were told to sign on paper accepting to take back the wife home and not to torture or assault her or not to ask for illegal money. The accused no. 1 avoided the situation by saying that he would consult with his guardians and thereafter sign on the panchnama but on the following day they informed witness no. 1 that they were not ready. Hence, this complaint petition. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case on baseless and fictitious allegations. While denying subjecting her to torture, it has been submitted that to the contrary it was the complainant who used to torture her mother -in -law, both mentally and physically, and during the absence of the husband she used to beat up her in -laws and had developed extra marital relationship with her own brother -in -law and other persons which was not accepted by the accused persons who forbade her from doing such acts. It is further submitted that the husband is still ready and willing to keep the wife with full dignity and for the same a lawyer 'snotice dated 24.1.2006 was sent to her which she flatly turned down and refused to live with the husband. This was followed by another notice on 4.3.2006 which was again turned down. Several efforts were made to bring her back to matrimonial home but she was rigid in her stand and did not return. While denying her ouster from the matrimonial home, it was submitted that on 1.11.2005 some persons including her relatives came from her naiher and after exchange of some hot words started beating and looting cash, ornaments and other articles from the house of the petitioner. They allegedly also compelled the petitioners to sign on a blank paper and coloured paper and threatened them not to inform the police and fled away on a jeep by locking the petitioners in a room from outside. On being freed Md. Mustaqim, the father of Kalim, filed a complaint case bearing C.R. No. 28 of 2006 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, alleging commission of offences under Sections 452, 323 and 380 I.P.C. wherein cognizance was taken and the present case is by way of a counter blast.

(3.) FINALLY , the learned counsel for the petitioners raised the objection over the learned Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, exercising jurisdiction in the instant complaint as it was barred by the provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as if the demands as alleged were indeed made they were all made in the matrimonial home in Village -Nazipur in the District of Samastipur and the Court at Begusarai had no jurisdiction to take cognizance.