SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA, ANIL KUMAR MISHRA, CHETNA MISHRA @ CHETNA JHA AND SARITA KUMARI @ PUTUL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND PAWAS MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Cr. Revision application has been preferred by the petitioners herein for setting aside the impugned order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in T.R. Case No. 489 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioners had earlier moved before this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 1028 of 2004 which was remanded back by the order dated 30.11.2005 for a fresh decision on the discharge petition. It is stated that by the impugned order the trial court has again dismissed the prayer for their discharge. Hence the present revision.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 had actually left her matrimonial home on 17.2.1999 on the pretext of attending marriage ceremony of her relatives and when she did not return back and finding no way out, the petitioner No. 1 had to send a legal notice through lawyer on 13.10.1999 to the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and its acknowledge was received on 28.10.1999 but without any response. Inspite of constant pursuasion when the complainant/opposite party No. 2 did not return to lead her happy marital life with her husband petitioner No. 1, finding no alternative, the petitioner -husband had to file a Matrimonial suit No. 8 of 2000 in the court of District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, for a decree of divorce on the ground of torture and cruelty meted out by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 to the petitioner No. 1 -husband under Sections 13 (1)(1A)(1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the meantime, on receipt of the notice in the said Matrimonial suit, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 filed a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for her maintenance and subsequently a complaint case under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for which the present revision has been preferred against the impugned order whereby the petition for their discharge in the complaint case giving rise to police case was rejected.