PRADIPTA SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners, named above, for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of CP No. 163 of 2004, registered for the offence under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as also all the orders, passed therein, including the orders dated 16th June, 2004, 21st August, 2004 and 12th October, 2004, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. Aforesaid prayer has been made mainly on the ground that no part of the alleged offence having been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, the proceeding is not maintainable.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that marriage between petitioner No. 1. namely, Pradipta Sahu, and opposite party No. 2, namely, Mrs. Anuradha @ Minu Sahu, was solemnized on 17th April, 2003, according to Hindu rites and customs at Ghanty Milan Mandir, District -Burdwan, within the State of West Bengal. Petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are the in -laws of opposite party No. 2. It is stated that since after the marriage, to the utter dismay of the petitioners, it was discovered that opposite party No. 2 was not willing to stay with her husband. Further, it was discovered that her parents had, in fact, suppressed the age of opposite party No. 2, who was found 2 to 3 years older than her date of birth, as was given by her parents in course of negotiation. It is further stated that after marriage, the petitioners noticed that opposite party No. 2 was suffering from acute nervous disorder, which was suppressed at the time of solemnization of marriage. After marriage, Ashtha Mangala Puja was held on 24th April, 2003, whereinafter, opposite party No, 2 is stated to have told her husband that she can not accompany him to Kolkata, because she was to appear at some examination at Aurangabad, Bihar. When husband of opposite party No. 2 wanted to accompany her to Aurangabad, opposite party No. 2 refused and said that she will go along with her brother and will come back after her examination is over. Thereafter, she left the house of petitioner No. 1 and after two days, petitioner No. 1 received call from his wife (opposite party No. 2), when she said that she was staying at Anuragh Narayan Road, Aurangabad, along with someone, to whom she called uncle, although she did not give the name of the said person and stated that her brother has returned to Bokaro immediately. Petitioner No. 1 became stunned due to the said conduct of his wife, who was staying outside for about 10 to 12 days. When petitioner No. 1 talked to his father -in -law, he was informed by his in -laws that they will look into it. It is further stated that petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 stayed together for about 25 to 30 days in between 17th April. 2003 i.e. when they were married and 24th August, 2003 when she finally left her in -laws house after insulting several body, including her in -laws and husband. All the petitioners are stated to have requested father of opposite party No. 2 to came and resolve the dispute but when they came, opposite party No. 2 did not agree even with their suggestions. In the aforesaid situation, petitioner No. 1 is stated to have moved before a Court of competent jurisdiction for dissolution of marriage. Further case of the petitioners is that when the aforesaid matters were brought to the notice of the Court, opposite party No. 2 threatened them of dire consequences and in such a situation, petitioner No. 1 lodged Suri PS GD No. 517 dated 11th September, 2003 and GD No. 122 dated 3rd December, 2003. Matrimonial Suit No. 11 of 2004 has also been filed by petitioner No. 1 before the District Judge, Birbhum at Siuri, praying therein, for a decree, declaring the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 as nullity and not binding upon the petitioners.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners argued the case on merit and challenged the proceedings mainly on the ground that no part of the alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate,