BASANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.The petitioners have filed the instant application, invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in respect of Complaint Case No. 315 of 2001 (T. R. No. 1250 of 2002) and also the order dated 30.1.2002 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby summons were issued to the petitioners directing them to face trial for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The aforesaid order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the trial court has erred in taking cognizance of the offences beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also on the additional ground that even on the basis of the allegations in the complaint petition as made by the opposite party No. 2, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and further, that the allegations being essentially in relation with the matrimonial dispute, the compromise which was affected between the complainant and the accused person -petitioner ought to have been considered by the trial court for dropping the entire proceedings.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the opposite party No. 2 -complainant had filed the aforementioned complaint case against the petitioner and four other co -accused persons on 11.10.2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, alleging, inter alia, that her marriage with the accused No. 1, namely, the present petitioner, was solemnized about 18 years ago according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage she began residing at her matrimonial house, but since she could not bear any child, she was ill -treated, neglected and subjected to various acts of cruelty both mentally or physically by her husband, parents -in -law and brother -in -law. A demand for Rajdoot Motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - was also made by the husband and in -laws and non -fulfillment of the demand led to more tortures and cruelty inflicted on her. Eventually, the complainant was brought by her husband -petitioner to her father's house on 15.1.1998 after illegally retaining her entire personal belongings including her gold ornaments, and she was left with a warning that she would not be allowed to return to her matrimonial house without the demand being fulfiled. A compromise between the spouse was attempted by the complainant's father and other witnesses, but the attempt had failed. Later, the husband married another lady by way of second marriage even during the subsistence of his matrimonial relation with the complainant.

(3.) MR . A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 does not refute the claim of the petitioner in respect of a petition for withdrawal of the case purported to have been filed by the complainant before the trial court. However, he has seriously challenged the ground of the petitioner in respect of limitation. The contention of Sahani is that the cruelty did not stop on the date when the petitioner had brought and left the opposite party No. 2 at her father's place on 15.1.1988. Rather, it had continued even thereafter as because the opposite party No. 2 was still expecting that her husband would come and take her back and restore conjugal relation and in continuous and persistent efforts she had even called for a Panchyat which was held less than two years prior to the date of filing of the complaint petition and the petitioner -husband having failed to honour the direction of the Panchyat, had caused further mental cruelty to the complainant.