GOPAL KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.491 of 2013 instituted under Section(s) 363, 366-A, 467, 468, 376, 342, 506, 509/34 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that this is a case of malicious prosecution. Marriage between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 was performed on 30.06.201 Their marriage was inter-caste marriage and the parents of the Opposite Party No.2 were not ready to allow the Opposite Party No.2 to live with the Petitioner. The Petitioner has filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights on 10.12012 vide Matrimonial Case No.174 of 2012 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa, in which notice was issued to the Opposite Party No.2 on 30.01.2013. Thereafter, instant complaint was filed by the Complainant on 20.04.2013. Thereafter, surprisingly, on 204.2013, the Complainant herself filed a petition in the Court below that she did not want to pursue the Complaint. Since the Complaint was already sent under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C., no action was taken. The police, ultimately, after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the Petitioner in the case and the Court below after looking into the charge-sheet and other materials available in the case diary took cognizance against the Petitioner by order dated 19.05.2015. Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that both parties are adult and they have voluntarily entered into marriage, but due to pressure of the family of the Opposite Party No.2, they could not live as husband and wife. The Petitioner is still ready to keep the Opposite Party No.2 as his wife.

(3.) Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submits that Opposite Party No.2 is living in her maternal home with her parents. There was no marriage between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2. The Petitioner on false assurance took her to different places including Delhi and also sexually exploited her. The Petitioner forced her to join the Institute, which was run by this Petitioner. The Petitioner also took nude photograph of the Complainant and gave threat to destroy her reputation.