PRADEEP KUMAR BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.12.2004 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, whereby and whereunder, he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/494 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Masalia P.S. Case No. 34 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 555 of 2004/T.R. No. 615 of 2005 at present pending in the Court of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that the informant -opposite party no. 2, (Putul Devi) married with petitioner no. 1 (Pradeep Kumar Bhandari) as per the Hindu Rites. It is further stated that for about one year, relation between petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 remain cordial and at that time, petitioner no. 1 was unemployed. It is further alleged that after one year, father -in - law of opposite party no. 2 died and on his place, petitioner no. 1 got a Government job on compassionate ground. It is alleged that thereafter petitioners started demanding Rs. 20,000/ -(Rs. Twenty thousand) as dowry and for that purpose they also assaulted opposite party no. 2. It is stated that the opposite party no. 2 disclosed the aforesaid fact to her father. It is stated that her father, being a poor man could only arranged Rs. 2,000/ -(Rs. Two thousand) and gave it to petitioner no. 1, but, in spite of the same on the next date, complainant was driven out from her matrimonial house. It is stated that thereafter opposite party no. 2 was living in the house of her parents. It is further alleged that on 30.04.2004, petitioner no. 1 solemnized marriage with Anita Kumari at Basukinath Temple. Accordingly, present case has been filed.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the year 2003, Title Matrimonial Suit No. 17 of 2002 was jointly filed by petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, in the court of District Judge, Pakur under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, praying therein that a decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent may be passed. It is submitted that in the aforesaid Matrimonial Suit, statement of both the parties recorded by learned District Judge, Pakur and thereafter vide order dated 07.04.2003, marriage between petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was dissolved. It further appears that in view of aforesaid order dated 07.04.2003, the decree prepared and signed on 25.04.2003. It is submitted that after signature on the aforesaid decree, there is no relation in between petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 as husband and wife. In that circumstance, no offence under Sections 498A/494/323 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, it is submitted that order by which cognizance was taken is without application of mind and an abuse of the process of Court, which cannot be sustained in this application.