MADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated

(2.) 12.2003 passed in CP Case No. 264/2003, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that marriage of Bikrant Pratap Singh (opposite party No. 2) was solemnized with Smt. Madhu Singh (petitioner) at the residence of Bijendra Singh and Smt. Kusma Devi at village Sirsaganj P.S. Sirsaganj. District Firojabad and after marriage Smt. Madhu Singh came to the House of Bikrant Pratap Singh but she was having very indifferent attitude and also she was frustrated in her conjugal life and she always used to say that she does not like to live at Bokaro with opposite party No. 2 and on one and other pretext she always desired to go to her father 'shouse. Some time after opposite - party No. 2 came to know that the father and mother of Madhu Singh do not like that Madhu Singh should lead her conjugal life with opposite party No. 2 and they always used to take Madhu Singh from the house of opposite party No. 2 on one pretext or other. It appears that father and mother of Madhu Singh intended to marry Madhu Singh (petitioner) with another person. In June, 2003 father of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No.2 went to the residence of Bijendra Singh to bring Madhu Singh but bidai was refused and at the instance of opposite party No. 2 and his father a panchayati was convened on 27.6.2003 and according to the direction of punches bidai was given with opposite party No. 2 and petitioner Madhu Singh came to her matrimonial house. After arrival of Madhu Singh at Bokaro, she maintained indifferent attitude in the domestic work as well as in her conjugal life with the opposite party No. 2. On 28.7.2003 petitioners Bijendra Singh and Kusma Devi and Sanjay Singh came to the quarter of opposite party No. 2 and they wanted to take Madhu Singh (petitioner No.1) back and they even wanted that there may be divorce in between petitioner - Madhu Singh and opposite party No. 2 as, it appeared that they have settled the marriage of Madhu Singh somewhere else. But, opposite party No. 2 and his father wanted to keep Madhu Singh as daughter -in -law. Due to much insistence by the other co -accused, an agreement was arrived at that relationship of husband and wife between petitioner Madhu Singh and opposite party No. 2 shall stand cut -off from 29.7.2003 and all the concerned persons came to Civil Court 'spremises and two affidavits were sworn by petitioner No. 1 giving talak and opposite party No. 2 also swore affidavit about the divorce of his conjugal life and also deed of dissolution of marriage was executed before the Notary Public and on the same day in the evening of 29th July, 2003 the petitioners remained in the quarter of opposite party No. 2 and about that time opposite party No. 2 had gone out for urgent work and his father went to the market of the opposite party No. 2 with fists and slaps and they also tied her hand by rope and petitioner Bijendra Singh snatched away golden chain alongwith locket valued at Rs. 7000/ - and petitioner Kusma Devi snatched her earrings and ring and petitioner Madhu Singh took out Rs.15,000/ - from the Godrej of the opposite party No. 2 and co -accused took the suitcase etc. and a complaint case was filed against all the accused persons, who are petitioner here under Sections 380, 323, 506, 352 and 341, IPC.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the complaint case bearing No. 264/2003 has been filed prior to the filing of the Sirsaganj P.S.Case No. 202/2003 but on perusal of complaint petition of complaint ease No. 264/2003 it appears that under the same date of occurrence date has been changed by manipulating and under the heading "date of occurrence 28.8.2003" has been changed as 29.7.2003 and "at about 8 p.m." has been changed to "at about 6 p.m." with the intention to show that this complaint case has been filed after lodging of the FIR, but date occurrence has been shown to be prior from the date of lodging of FIR.