MD RASHID KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 13th May, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 124 of 2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th September, 2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau, Daltonganj in Complaint Case No. 691 of 2001, corresponding to T.R. No. 575 of 2012, whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. and were further directed to undergo S.I. for one year each with a fine of Rs.500/- each, has been affirmed.

(2.) The case of the complainant Nasreen Khatoon in short, is that, she was married with Rashid Khan according to Muslim rites and custom on 27.05.1997 and after marriage she went to her sasural at Latehar and lived there peacefully for two years and out of said wedlock a female child was born. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that in January, 1999 her husband started demanding cash Rs. 50,000/-. The father of the complainant in order to keep the accused happy paid some amount from time to time, but the accused persons, mainly her husband again started demanding motor cycle, Colour T.V. or Rs.1,00,000/- cash from the father of the complainant. When the father of the complainant did not fulfill the demand of accused persons, the accused persons assaulted the complainant and did not provide food etc. to her and her minor daughter, and on 02.09.2001, at 7.00 A.M., accused persons assaulted the complainant by means of fists, slap, lathi and drove her out, after snatching away all her belongings. The accused persons especially her husband threatened the complainant to satisfy the demand otherwise she will be divorced.

(3.) Mr. A.K.Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before filing of the complaint case, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by Talaq, which had taken place on 27.01.1998 itself. Learned Senior counsel further contended that exhibit-A is the judgment of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, dismissing the Maintenance case of the informant wife after holding that Talaq was given by the opposite party (husband) on 27.01.1998, was a valid Talaq. The learned senior counsel concluded his argument by submitting that when the divorce had taken place prior to the institution of the complaint case then question of offence under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. does not arise and it is a fit case in which the petitioners should be acquitted.