JEETENDRA DHIMAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 20 -1 -1998 in Complaint Case No. 5(C)/94, whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Sheikhpura allowed the prayer of the complainant -Opposite Party No. 2 to examine the witnesses mentioned in the petition dated 9 -1 -1998 and further also allowed examination of complainant and her father on recall.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of the petitioner with Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized on 27 -6 -1990. Soon after the complainant coming to her husband's house, her father -in -law and other family members of the petitioner including the petitioner started torturing the complainant and demanding Rs. 25,000/ - and a motorcycle. The petitioner forcibly brought her to her parent's house and dispossessed her of her ornaments and clothes. The complainant -Opposite Party No. 2 then filed a complaint petition on 18 -1 -1994 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura being Case No. 5(C)/94 against the petitioner and others.

(3.) The learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura finding sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons under Sections 498 -A, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code took cognizance on 4 -3 -1994. The learned Court below examined complainant on oath and made enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. and thereafter took cognizance by the aforesaid order and issued summons against the petitioner and other accused persons. It appears that in pursuance to the summon the petitioner and other accused persons appeared in the Court and were granted bail. The Court below called for reports regarding the allegation of second marriage of the petitioner and after having considered the fact that both the reports are contradictory to each other confirmed the provisional bail earlier granted to the petitioner. Subsequently, the complainant examined number of witnesses before charge but no one said to have stated anything about the second marriage of the petitioner. However, charge was framed under Sections 498 -A, 323 and 379 of the I.P.C.