MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 25.9.1995 passed by the then judicial magistrate, 1st class, Patna, in complaint case No. 757 of 1995.

(2.) Opposite party No. 2 filed the above-mentioned complaint case with the allegations that she was legally married wile of Petitioner No. 2, Shiv Nandan Singh and the marriage had taken place about 40 to 42 years back according to Hindu rites and rituals. They lived as husband and wife for long time and three daughters, namely, Manju Kumari, Renu Kumari and Shila Kumari were born to them in the said wed-lock. Manju Kumari had already been married. Petitioner No. 2, when the complaint was filed, was an employee of Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Patna. According to the complainant, Petitioner No. 2 had developed illicit relationship with Petitioner No. 1 Meena Devi and as a result of which he started misbehaving with the complainant and ultimately she came to know that on 28.9.1983 Petitioner No. 2 had married Petitioner No. 1 before the Special Marriage Registrar, Patna. According to the complainant as the said marriage was held in the life time of the complainant then the Petitioners are liable for (sic)ting offence as punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, After the complaint was filed on the ground of torture and humiliation Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was also included. During the course of enquiry besides the complainant being examined, her two daughters Manju Kumari and Renu Kumari were also examined as witnesses and then cognizance was taken as already mentioned above.

(3.) It is the contention of the Petitioners that Petitioner No 2. had (sic) a divorce case No. 41 of 1977 against the complainant before the District Judge Patna, on the ground of adultery with one Ramashraya Singh. It was also stated that for long time the complainant was not having conjugal life with the Petitioner No 2. The complainant did not contest the divorce case and ultimately vide order dated 4.1.1983 divorce decree was granted and on 28.9.1983 marriage was solemnized between the two Petitioners and a son was also born in that wed-lock about nine months after the decree of divorce between the two. The complainant had also filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 1977 being case No. 460 of 1977 and the judicial magistrate vide order dated 16.5.1978 dismissed the maintenance case and then a criminal revision No. 375 of 1978 was preferred by the complainant before the District Judge, Patna and by order dated 19.9.1979 maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs. 250/ - per month to the complainant. The complainant admitted in her petition for maintenance that she was not having conjugal life with the Petitioner No. 2 for the last eight years since the filing of the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All these facts, as is stated for and on behalf of the Petitioners, had been admitted from the side of the complainant opposite (sic) 2 but it has been alleged that before to so called marriage between the two Petitioners they were having (sic) relationship beforehand and the complainant and to suffer humiliation and mental torture for more than two to three decades.