SHAKIL AHMED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings including the order impugned dated 13.12.2000 by which Shri S.K. Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi found prima facie offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners.

(2.) Prosecution story in short was that the complainant-Nikhat Parween opposite party No. 2 herein was married to the Petitioner No. 1 Shakil Ahmad and two children were born to them from their wedlock. At the time of nikah, Dainmehr was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- with dinars but the same could never be paid to her. Besides, jewelleries made of gold and silver, various costly articles and gifts were presented to the complainant on the eve of her marriage and she had carried all those items with her to matrimonial home at Rajganjpur. It was alleged that the Petitioner-husband demanded cash of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant to be brought from her parental home on the pretext that he had to start his business and in that process, all his relatives joined him and subjected her to torture in various ways. However, a sum of Rs. 15.000/- was given to her husband in the expectation of better future of the complainant, but her miseries did not end here. She was driven out by the accused persons from her matrimonial home and since then she was living and leading a hapless life at Ranchi along with her minor children.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that during the period of litigation between the parties compromise was effected, accordingly, a joint compromise petition was filed on 6.4.2002 which contained one of the terms that the husband-Petitioner No. 1 would provide Rs. 1,200/- as her monthly maintenance and husband-Petitioner No. 1 is continuing by paying the amount to the complainant and pursuant to such terms contained in the agreement the parties expressed to withdraw their cases, which they had filed against each other, including the present case.