RAMESH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No. 842(C) of 2006 including the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A/323 I.P.C. and has directed for issuance of process.

(2.) THE complainant, Sushma Devi, O.P. No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint against the sole petitioner inter alia stating that her marriage with the accused was solemnized on 15.6.1980 and out of the said wedlock a daughter was born. It is alleged that the complainant being the only daughter of her father, the petitioner became greedy and in order to grab the property of the father-in-law he resorted to torturing the complainant. It is stated that even earlier the petitioner had assaulted the complainant for which Kotwali P.S. Case No. 159 of 1984 under Sections 307, 342/34 I.P.C. was lodged and petitioner was convicted and sentenced for three years in the resultant Sessions Trial No. 488 of 1984. It has further been alleged that the complainant with financial help from her father brought up and got married their daughter, Sulekha, who had by then reached the age of marriage. It is also alleged that fed-up with the threats extended by the petitioner and preceiving no change in him she filed Divorce Case No. 18 of 1997 which ended in compromise. It has further been stated that the complainant thereafter has been living in her matrimonial home for the last five years and as she did not keep good health and the petitioner neglected her she came to her parental home. It is also alleged that at around 9 A.M. on 28.8.2006 the petitioner came to the parental home of the complainant and requested her to return to the matrimonial home and as she refused the petitioner caught hold of her hair and assaulted her and when her father came to her rescue the petitioner threw a 'Baithi' (Sickle) at him which missed the mark and instead hit the complainant on her hand causing injury and seeing the same the petitioner ran away.

(3.) FROM a plain reading of the complaint petition and the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that no offence under Section 498A l.P.C. appears to have been made out against the petitioner and his prosecution thereunder would be an abuse of the process of the court. However, offence under Section 323 l.P.C. does appear to have been made out and the petitioner will have to face the trial for the same.