Monday, August 12, 2013

498a, wife back 2 matri home, again break up, wife NOT examd us 202, wife dies @ her sister's house. 498a quashed !! Patna HC

498a, wife back 2 matri home, again break up, wife NOT examd us 202, wife dies @ her sister's house. 498a quashed !! Patna HC 

Notes
***************
* wife's father files complaint on behalf of wife
* upon cocurt direction wife taken to matri home
* but again fights re surface and wife leaves matri home
* then wife goes to her sister's house
* she dies (natural death ? ) there are sister's house
* wife NOT examined u/s 202
* husband and co seek quash as wife NEVER examined and the whole complaint is hearsay
* Honourable patna HC quashes case 



******************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM PATNA HC WEB SITE 
******************************************************************



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40987 of 2007


**********************************************************************************

1. Ranjan Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Dharmendra Singh.
2. Dharmendra Singh, S/o Janardhan Singh.
3. Umrawati Devi, W/o Sri Dharmendra Singh.
4. Anjana Devi, W/o Rakesh Singh @ Rintu Singh.
5. Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Dharmendra Singh.
All Petitioners are resident of Village-Amlori, P.S.-Siwan Muffasil, District-Siwan.
********* Petitioner/s

Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Murari Prasad Singh, S/o Late Hira Singh.
3. Resident of Village-Mahna, P.S.-Bhagwanpur Hat, District-Siwan.
********* Opposite Party/s


***********************************************************************************

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Poonam Kumari, Adv
Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv. 

***********************************************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 01-08-2013

Anjana Prakash, J: The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 13.09.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 1755 of 2005. The background facts of the case is that the Petitioner No. 1 was married to the daughter of the Complainant on 21.05.2004. However, the marriage was incompatible on account of which the Petitioner No. 1 filed divorce Case No. 24 of 2005 before the District Judge, Siwan on 23.06.2005 on grounds of insanity and cruelty.

Notices were issued to the wife whereafter on 19.09.2005 the present Complaint was filed. It was stated in the Complaint that the daughter of the Complainant was married with the Petitioner No. 1 who upon the direction given by the Trial Court was taken to her matrimonial home whereafter she was living in New Delhi where she was kept well for a month. Thereafter, the accused persons started demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs for buying a flat in New Delhi the accused No. 1 kept on repeating the demand. On non-fulfilment of the same they started torturing her on account of which she became mentally unwell. They then assaulted her and left her at maternal home. It was on account of this the present Complaint was filed.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that at no stage the daughter of the Complainant was examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and hence the allegations of demand of dowry and torture are merely on hearsay and not admissible since she was never produced. As it happened she was living with her sister at Chandigarh where she died on 14.04.2006 and, therefore, the present case would have no legal sanctity in her absence.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that since he is hearsay witness to the torture meted out to his daughter it would be enough material to put the accused persons on trial. However, considering that now the daughter of the Complainant is dead and she alone would have been the competent witness to depose with regard to demand of dowry and torture, in my opinion, in her absence the trial would be a fruitless exercise. Hence, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 13.09.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 1755 of 2005 is, hereby, quashed.

Patna High Court, Patna

Dated, the 1st August, 2013

(Anjana Prakash, J.)

NAFR/Vikash/-




***

FOLLOW 
@ATMwithDick on twitter or 
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases ) 
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases


regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist