BINDHYACHAL RANJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant of Complaint Case No.1254 of 2002 has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 31.3.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Criminal Revision No.302 of 2005, whereby he has set aside the order dated 30.7.2005 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhagalpur, in the said Complaint Case whereunder he had taken cognizance under Sections 494, 147, 148, 114, 494 and 504 I.P.C. against all the persons impleaded as accused.

(2.) The complainant filed the said complaint on 18.12.2000 inter alia alleging that his marriage with Sheela Devi was solemnized on 5.6.1996 at the Shiv Mandir at Kahalgaon but at about 8 P.M. on 13.6.1996 Ram Bihari Choudhary and others at the point of pistols forcibly took away Sheela Devi. The complainant is said to have sent a legal notice dated 12.6.1997 but receiving no response his father Raj Kishore Bhagat lodged Complaint Case No.589 of 1997 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, for the commission of offences under Sections 380, 406, 504, 120-B and 364 I.P.C. The complainant also alleged that while taking away Sheela Devi forcibly, her father had also taken away ornaments worth Rs. 33000.00 and cash to the tune of Rs. 2000.00. It is also alleged that notwithstanding the fact that Sheela Devi was his legally wedded wife, her family members, in the lust for money, got her married to one Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal on 7.6.2002 at the temple of Maa Purna Devi and entry in regard to the said marriage was made at serial no.589 in the marriage register maintained in the temple. The further allegation is that Sheela Devi was forced into an illegal marriage and was living in adultery with the said Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal in his house. The further grievance of the complainant is that Sheela Devi at the instigation of her family members had filed a case under Sec. 498A I.P.C. and a Divorce Case No.12 of 1996 before the Family Court, Bhagalpur, both of which were pending.

(3.) The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Court had erred in law in entertaining the revision as an order taking cognizance being interlocutory in nature no revision lies thereagainst.