URMILA SINGH Vs. SAHDEO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS petition sent by the petitioner to the then Chief Justice of thIS Court was treated as Cr. MISc. application by the order of the then Honble the Chief Justice and the matter was placed before me on 3-1-1993. The Court on consideration of the materials has treated the said application as quashing application and the notices were ISsued to the opposite paties. The order dated 8-1-1993 read as follows: ThIS petition has been placed before me treating it to be properly constituted criminal mIScellaneous petition under orders of Honble C.J.I. have gone through the petition filed by the appellant. Urmila Devi daughter of Jagannath Ram alias Jagannath Singh, 97/5 Hazra Road Tollygung, Calcutta -70026. From the tenor of the petition and the annexures appended thereto, it appears that the petitioner, by the present petition, wants thIS Court to intervene in the matter and afford protection and proper shelter to the applicant by granting suitable relief to which she IS legally entitled on the facts stated in the petition and the relevant papers filed therewith. The proper course that appears to me on going through the petition and annexures appended thereto IS to set in. motion in the context thIS petition as a quashing application. ThIS IS an application for quashing of the criminal prosecution launched against the applicant, Urmila Devi, in complaint case No. 269/C/92 by Shadeo Ram due to instrumentality of Buoy Singh, husband of Urmila Devi under Sections 380 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which IS pending before Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial MagIStrate, 2nd Class. LakhISarai. DIStrict Munger, who has been pleased to ISsue summons against the applicant. Let, therefore, in the first instance, said Sahdeo Ram and Buoy Singh, be arrayed as opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, in thIS case with their parents and address given by the applicant in the instant petition and also as mentioned in the complaint (Case No. 269/92) appended to the petition. Issue notice to the opposite parties under RegIStered Post with A/D to show cause as to why thIS application be not admitted and, if possible, finally dISposed of at the stage of admISsion itself. Notices will be ISsued by the office of the Court. Alongwith the notices, photostat of the petition alongwith all the annexures thereto shall also be sent to enable the opposite parties to file effective show cause. ThIS should be done within a week from today unfailingly. Call for the records of Complaint Case No. 269Cj92. so as to reach thIS Court within three weeks from today. Show cause, if any, must be filed by the 15th of February, 1993, otherwISe the matter shall be decided ex parte. Put up thIS case again on 16th February, 1993, under the same heading. During the tendency of thIS application for hearing in the admISsion matter, there shall notices were ISsued to the opposite parties. The order dated 8-1-1993 reads as follows: be an ad interim stay of the further proceedings including execution of the summons already ISsued against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 269- C/92 pending in the Court of Sri Anup Kumar- Singh, Judicial MagIStrate, 2nd Class, LakhISarai, DIStrict Munger. Meanwhile the office of the Court shall also ISsue notice td the petitioner Urmila Devi, intimating her that her application sent to the Honble the Chief Justice has been treated as Cr. MISc. case bearing No. 38/93, which IS fixed for admISsion on 16-2-1993. The office will also send a copy of thIS order to her. ThIS communication shall also be made under Regd. cover with Al d at the cost of the Court forthwith.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner Urmila Devi was married to one Buoy Singh, opposite party No.2. Since the husband has deserted her, she left the husbands place and went to Calcutta, where her father was working as Class IV employee. She has filed a petition in terms of Section 125, Cr PC before the Alipur Court claiming maintenance from Buoy Singh. Learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record has allowed the claim of the petitioner and Buoy Singh was directed to pay a. sum of Rs. 300/- by way of maintenance to the petitioner Urmila Devi. Thereafter the instant complaint petition was filed by one Sahdeo Ram stating therein that the petitioner Urmila Singh is his legally married wife and the said marriage was solemnized in the year 1991. It is further alleged that in absence of the family members she took away some ornaments and fled away from the house. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, a case was registered as complaint case No. 271(c) 1992 and accordingly the learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners for her appearance on the date fixed. The petitioner instead of appearing before, the learned Magistrate, filed a petition before the then Chief Justice on the basis of which this Cr. Misc. was registered as stated above. While admitting the case, this Court requested Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Senior Counsel to assist this Court at the time of hearing and accordingly he has appeared in course of hearing. The instant prosecution has been initiated on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the said Sahdeo Ram, is on the face of it seems to be frivolous one, inasmuch as, no detail has been mentioned in the complaint petition as to how, when and in what way he married the petitioner. That a part even assuming for a moment that the petitioner has taken away some money from the house of the so-called husband, it cannot be said that she has committed any offence much less the offence alleged. From the materials, it appears that after the order has been passed in terms of Section 125, Cr PC directing the first husband Bijoy Singh to pay a sum of Rs. 3001- by way of maintenance. He had set up the complainant namely Sahdeo Ram to file a complaint namely Sahdeo Ram to file a complaint against the petition in order to coerce her not to claim the maintenance passed by the Alipur Court. I have heard Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan in details as well as the Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. I am of the view that very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court and accordingly the order taking cognizance on such complainant petition is hereby quashed. This application is accordingly allowed. Let the order of this Court be sent to the Court as well as the petitioner forthwith. This Court records its appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, a senior member of the bar. Application allowed.