MANISH KUMAR 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 arising out of C.P. Case No. 215 of 2010 and the order dated 14.6.2010 by which Sri S.D. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro having been satisfied with the materials collected in course of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found a prima facie offence against the petitioners under Sections 498A/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 Manish Kumar is the husband, petitioner No. 2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Singh is the father-in-law and petitioner No. 3 Mukesh Kumar is the elder brother of the husband of the complainant- opposite party No. 2 Sangeeta.

(3.) The complainant Sangeeta alleged in the C.P. Case No. 215 of 2010 that she was married with the petitioner No. 1 Manish Kumar on 20.4.2008 and huge amount in cash was given to the father-in-law of the complainant besides, utensils and further cash in different heads. After the marriage was solemnized at Bokaro Steel City, she was taken to her matrimonial home, situated at village Fatehpur in the district of Siwan (Bihar) where she was tortured in various ways during her stay for six days and the accused had demanded Rs.40,00,000/- (Forty Lakhs) for purchasing an apartment in Delhi, Hero Honda motorcycle, wrist watch and gold rings. The complainant though tried to explain the financial incapacity of her father to oblige them but the accused persons including the petitioners abused and maltreated her. It was alleged that her co-sister Madhuri Devi compelled her to keep all her ornaments in almirah at her matrimonial home, which was later on stolen by Madhuri Devi. The complainant went to Delhi with her husband and in August 2008 all the accused persons went to Uttam Nagar, Delhi and there also they all tortured to the complainant mentally and physically. Her husband Manish Kumar also used to assault her in a drunken condition. Her pregnancy, which she was bearing, was terminated without her consent by administering certain homoeopathic medicine mixing it in fruitjuice. Consequently, she became seriously ill, but since no proper medical aid was given, she informed her father, who came there and provided medical aid and only then her life could be saved. She alleged that her in-laws had been saying that her marriage was performed for money and not for bearing child. On being tortured constantly at the hands of the accused persons, she came to Bokaro on 14.10.2009 and narrated her suffering to her father and other witnesses. Yet, she had to resume her duty in Delhi, so she returned to Delhi on 31.10.2009. Her father tried to pacify the matter through mediation but no fruitful result could come out and finally, it was alleged that she was brought to Bokaro by her husband Manish Kumar on 28.2.2010 where she was brutally assaulted by him who returned back alone extending threats to the complainant that he would solemnize second marriage with another girl if she would come to Delhi without fulfilling the demands and she was finally deserted by her husband on 28.2.2010. Complaint was filed when her father failed in his last attempt to resolve the dispute. After inquiry, a prima facie case was found only against the petitioners and hot against the accused viz. Baby Kumari, Bikrama Singh, Pushpa Devi and Prabhunath Singh. In that manner the learned Court partly disbelieved the allegations after enquiry as levelled by the complainant.