KAUSIK SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.3.1999 passed in C.P. Case No. 918/98, whereby the whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad took cognizance under Sections 498 -A, 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of the complaint case are that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint stating, inter alia, therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 on 7.6.1995. She was leading a peaceful marriage life at her matrimonial home but a few months thereafter petitioner started expressing his views that the dowry given in the marriage is meagre and the petitioner Kausik Sinha, at the instigation of others; started demanding Rs. 5.00 lacs for investing the said amount in business. They also started demanding a share in the house of the father of opposite party No. 2 for the purpose of using the same as the office cum showroom of business. It is further stated that complainant 'sfather had already given some articles specifically demanded by the accused persons such as Titan wrist watch, Videocon colour T.V. etc. besides gold ornaments. Due to non -fulfilment of demand the accused persons stated calling the complaint opposite party No. 2 as mad and committed torture on her and the torture went to the climax when on 3.1.1997, when she was passing through her early stage of pregnancy, petitioner Kausik, Sinha poured kerosene oil on the body of the complainant and petitioner Smt. Kalpana Sinha went to bring a match box but the complainant fled away and saved her life. Complainant 'sfather was out of Dhanbad and when he returns back, she narrated the occurrence to her father. The complainant 'sfather went to her sasural and she came with her father to her naihar for some time. The complainant did not go to her sasural immediately, as she was pregnant. On 11.6.1997, on the occasion of 'jamai sasti ', petitioner Kausik Sinha was expected to come to the house of the parents of the complainant, as per Bengali custom and the mother of the complainant had to remain in fasting till the petitioner Kausik Sinha does not take meal and sweets at the house of the complainant paternal home. It is stated that petitioner Kausik Sinha came to the house of the complainant but he demanded further dowry and when inability was expressed, petitioner Kausik Sinha assaulted the complainant, who was at advance stage of pregnancy. She was sent to nursing home and after treatment she was released very next day and she stayed in her naihar and gave birth to a female child. When on the repeated request nobody came from her sasural, then she on 26.11.1997 went to her sasural with her father but there also the abused persons again started abusing and designing plan to kill the complainant and also started maltreating her. It is further stated that on information being sent to her father, her father come to her sasural and she came back to her naihar, where she is staying till now.

(3.) IN course of submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of a police case, a complaint case is also filed, then it becomes bounded duty of the learned Court below to see that when this fact is brought to its knowledge that for the same occurrence a complaint case has also been filed, then the proceeding of the complaint case should be stayed. Here in the instant case, an FIR was already lodged and after investigation, final form was submitted which was pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and soon thereafter a complaint case was filed, in that circumstances the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should have stayed the proceeding of the complaint case filed on behalf of the complainant and, cognizance taken including the provisions of Sec.210, Cr PC is fit to be quashed. In this connection, reliance was placed upon Shishir Kumar Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., 2000 (2) East Cr C 795 (Pat). Reliance was also placed upon Tokan Mahto V/s. State of Bihar, 1994 (2) East Cr C (NOC) 25 (Pat), wherein it has been held that cognizance was taken on complaint without calling for any report from the police and after trial, conviction was sustained but when the matter was brought before the High Court, even judgment was set aside.