BHAGWAN DAS Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the facts and points of law involved in these two cases are similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 1996 of 1994 are in -laws and second wife of Hira Lal, the husband of the complainant. In Cr. Misc. No. 6807. of 1996 the petitioners are Hira Lal and his other family members. In the first quashing application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4.6.1993, by which the Magistrate has refused ¢ to discharge them and framed charges under Section 494 read with Section 1208. of the Penal Code, whereas in the second case the petitioners have prayed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 292 (C) of 1989, giving rise to Trial No. 323 of 1995 including the order dated 12th January, 1996, by reason of which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, refused the prayer of the petitioner to drop the criminal case by discharging them. A further prayer has been made in the second quashing application to the effect that a direction should be given to the trial court to pass an order on the compromise petition filed by the petitioners and five others and the complainant-opposite pNy no.2 on 16th of June, 1994, by accepting the said compromise and drop the proceedings against these petitioners and other five accused persons.

(3.) THE facts of the case may be stated briefly : The complainant, Reeta Kumari, filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on 16.5.1989 stating therein that she was married to Hira Lal on 20.5.1978 according to Hindu Rites and after the marriage she lived as wife with Hiralal in his house. However, after six months of the marriage Hiralal along with his family members started torturing her for not paying dowry of rupees twenty thousand by her father. She was being subjected to assault by the accused persons. She further alleged that Hira Lal in connivance with all the accused persons married Babita Kumari on 8th March, 1987, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the I.P.C. Other accused persons are also guilty of offence under section 120B of the I.P.C. and Hira Lal and four others were also liable to be punished under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.