Patna High Court - Orders
Surendra Mandal And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Anr on 10 January, 2013
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.397 of 2011
======================================================
1. Surendra Mandal son of Rajendra Mandal
2. Rajendra Mandal son of Late Satya Narayan Mandal
3. Yashoda Devi wife of Rajendra Mandal
4. Upendra Mandal son of Rajendra Mandal
5. Ramdev Kapri son of late Teju Kapri
6. Reena Devi D/o Ramdev Kapri wife of Surendra Mandal
7. Kaushlya Devi wife of Ramdev Kapri
8. Anil Kapri son of Ramdev Kapri
All resident of village-Gopalpur, PS-Rajaun, District-Banka.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Janki Devi, wife of Surendra Mandal, daughter of Hari Mohan Sah,
resident of village-Baijnathpur, PS-Banka, District-Banka
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anurag Saurav, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Jha, Rana Pratap Singh and
Satyaveera, Advs.
For the State Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 10-01-2013Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Complaint Case No. 2211/2007 by which the court below has taken cognizance for offence under sections 379, 323, 498(A) & 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. From the record it appears that a complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 making an allegation that in the year 1996 she has entered into marriage with Surendra Mandal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.397 of 2011 (5) dt.10-01-2013 2/4 (petitioner No. 1) and after that they started demanding the dowry in the shape of motor cycle. It has been alleged that O.P. No. 2 was expelled from the house and petitioner No. 1 entered into 2nd marriage with Reena Devi (petitioner No. 6). After that, Complaint Case No. 727/1999 was filed where allegation of torture and second marriage was made. Parties had entered into an agreement, on that basis, accused persons were acquitted from the charge. It has been alleged that O.P. No. 2 again went to the matrimonial place, started living with her husband and her Sautan, second wife of the petitioner No. 1 but she met with the same treatment of humiliation and torture. It has been alleged that the accused persons attempted to kill the O.P. No. 2 by throttling setting her on fire by poring the kerosene oil. They have also tried to kill the complainant by administrating poison but she could survive and after that present case has been filed.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that whatever the dispute was with the petitioner No. 1 in connection with second marriage that has already been solved by entering into agreement between the parties and that cannot be subject-matter of the present case. He has further submitted that in terms of private agreement, 03 bighas of land was given to her for maintenance, subject to the condition that she would not sell out the land to third Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.397 of 2011 (5) dt.10-01-2013 3/4 party but at the later stage, she tried to sell the land which has become subject-matter of civil dispute.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no specific averment made against petitioner Nos. 5, 7 and 8 who are the father, mother and brother of the second wife of petitioner No. 1 and they have unnecessary been arrayed as accused in the case.
6. Counsel for the opposite party has submitted, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner No. 1 has entered into second marriage with Reena Devi (petitioner No. 6) and thereafter, she could not remain in the family because of torture perpetrated on her and she ultimately left the house. They have given 3 bighas of land to her but acted de hors to the settlement, as they want to take back the land whatever given to her in maintenance. It has further been submitted that they have tried to kill the O.P. No. 2 by administrating poison as well as by setting her on fire.
7. From the complaint petition it appears that there is no specific allegation has been made against Ramdev Kapri, (petitioner No. 5), Kaushlya Devi and Anil Kapri (petitioner Nos. 7 and 8), are distant relatives and are living outside the house and there is no specific averment in the complaint petition.
8. Having considered the rival contention of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.397 of 2011 (5) dt.10-01-2013 4/4 parties, except the petitioner Nos. 5, 7 and 8 against whom there is no specific allegation whatsoever made in the complaint petition whose petition is allowed but with regard to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 the same is dismissed with the liberty to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage.
9. Accordingly, order of cognizance is quashed in connection with petitioner Nos. 5, 7 & 8 but petition is dismissed with respect to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and this petition is partly allowed (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/-