KISHORE KUMAR Vs. RITU KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for and on behalf of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 136 of 1991, wherein cognizance has been taken against the seven accused -petitioners .above -named under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C., by order dated 5 -10 -93, passed by Mr. Y. J. Mallick, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah, in Complaint Case No. 136 of 1991/1356 of 1993, Ritu Kumari v. Ashok Kumar.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complaint petition (Annexure 1), filed in the Court of learned CJM, Nawadah, on 8 -4 -91, the opposite party was married to Kishore Kumar (Petitioner No. 1), according to Hindu rites on 12 -12 -1988. According to the allegations, the opposite party went to sasural after her marriage. It had become regular feature with her sasural people to demand dowry of about 1 lac. In course of time, it assumed serious proportions, and she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of different sasural people who are the accused -persons. She further alleges that petitioner No. 1 threatened her that he would marry for the second time, and would desert her if the demand of dowry was not met. She had, therefore, to leave her sasural and return to her father's place. The remaining accused -persons who are petitioners No. 2 to 7 herein, are first degree relations of petitioner No. 1, who are said to have abetted the offence. On these allegations, the aforesaid complaint petition was filed on 8 -4 -91. The learned CJM was pleased to transfer it to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Y.J. Mallick, to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, and ultimately passed the impugned order of cognizance.

(3.) THIS Court is clearly of the view that the present complaint case is a gross abuse of the process of Court, It is manifest from the narration of events that the opposite party has been making repeated attempts to implicate petitioner No. 1 and other members of his family for reasons best known to her. The first and the foremost thing which attracts immediate attention in this case is the judgment dated 30 -6 -89 (Annexure 3), whereby the marriage of opposite party with Ratan Murari Prasad was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that there could not have been a valid marriage according to Hindu rites between the opposite party and petitioner No. 1 until 30 -6 -89. Therefore, on the very face of it, the allegations in the present petition of complaint against the petitioners is palpably false. The allegations in the present petition of complaint (Annexure -1), that she is the legally -married wife of petitioner No. 1 which allegedly took place on 12 -12 -88, is obviously false because her marriage with Ratan Murari Prasad was dissolved on 30 -6 -89. This obviously is a brazen attempt to implicate the petitioners in a false case.