Brothr in law made advances on me & I was taken to witch doctor! beautiful FALSE 498a quash on all except husband. PATNA HC. Also the order is as recent as 01st August 2013 .
notes
*************************
* marriage on 9.3.2008
* after two months wife alleges that her brother in law made advances on her !!
* she also alleges that she was taken a witch doctor at Varanashi
* the doctor turns out to be a gynecologist !!
* and she has prescribed medicines for itching !!
* the total matrimony has lasted 6 months of which the woman has lived in a separate house for 3 months with her husband
* the counsel for the wife says that "....petitioners (husband and co) are landed persons having huge property and thus it was unfair for them to apportion only a small share to the informant !!!!!!
* Honourable PATNA HC appreciates the complete evidence and quashes the case
* please Note that the wife has filed cases on Brother in law, sister in law (b in law's wife) in addition to husband and parents
*****************************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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo .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.11795 of 2009
******************************************************
1. Purushottam Pandey, Son of Late Gauri Shankar Pandey.
2. Parema Devi @ Prema Devi, Wife of Purushottam Pandey.
3. Sushil Kumar Pandey @ Monu, Son of Purushottam Pandey.
4. Sudhir Kumar Pandey @ Sonu, Son of Purushottam Pandey.
5. Rina Devi, Wife of Sudhir Kumar Pandey.
All resident of Village Pithani, P.S. Dinara, District Rohtas.
**** **** Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sita Devi, Daughter of Rishi Muni Mishra, Resident of Village
Harnathpur, P.O. & P.S. Kochas, District Rohtas (Sasaram).
**** **** Opposite Parties
******************************************************
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
******************************************************
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
ORAL ORDER
01-08-2013
The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 13.1.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Kochas P.S. Case No. 115 of 2008.
The case of the informant is that she was married with petitioner no. 3 on 9.3.2008 whereafter she went to her inlaws' house on 11.3.2008. Initially for two months she was happy but thereafter the in-laws started torturing her for demand of dowry. The further allegation is that the brother-in-law i.e. petitioner no. 4 had started making advances upon her. She was forced to be treated by a witch doctor. She was taken to Varanasi for treatment by Dr. Vibha Mishra. When the doctor asked her to what was the problem, the informant said that she had no problem. She alleged that it was for declaring her insane that she had been taken to the doctor. She then came back to her maternal home on 16.9.2008.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed submitting therein that it is completely false to say that the informant had been taken to Dr. Vibha Mishra at Varanasi for any other purpose other than that to what she had complained. The medical report is being annexed as Annexure-3 series which shows that Dr. Vibha Mishra was a Gynecologist and there were certain medical problems which had been stated by her before the doctor. The medical report falsifies the allegation that the accused persons had taken steps for declaring her mentally unsound.
The counsel for the informant vehemently opposes this application. He argues that the petitioners are landed persons having huge property and thus it was unfair for them to apportion only a small share to the informant.
During investigation in paragraph 4, the further statement of the informant has been referred whereas, in paragraph 5 is the statement of the mother, paragraph nos. 6 and 7, the brother, paragraph 8, the cousin brother has been examined. In paragraph 16 is the statement of father of the informant whereas, paragraph 17, the aunt and paragraph 18 is a hearsay witness who had participated in the marriage from the girl's side. Thus, I find that there is no independent material to test the story of the prosecution.
In paragraph 20 is the statement of one of agnates of the petitioners who has stated that there was no truth in the allegation of demand of dowry or torture but in fact the dispute was with regard to partition of the property. In paragraph 37, is the place of occurrence wherein it is mentioned that the informant and her husband had stayed for about three months in a rented flat. In paragraph 47 and 62 are the supervision notes of the Dy.S.P. and S.P. who confirmed the prosecution case.
On going through the facts of the case, I find that admittedly the marriage had taken place on 9.3.2008 and the informant returned to her maternal home on 16.9.2008. In this period of six months for about three months she was in a rental premises only with her husband. In such circumstances, it is not believable that petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 had any role to play in torturing her. Moreover, the allegation of the informant that after having taken some medicine at Varanasi she started feeling drowsy is explainable by the fact that she had been treated for allergy and itching all over the body. It is common knowledge that medicine for allergy or itching has a doze of ingredients which causes drowsiness in a person.
Moreover, the allegation that the petitioner no. 4 started to make advances upon her so appears unbelievable in the facts of the case.
The argument of the informant with regard to the landed property supports the statement of the agnate of the petitioners who had stated that the real dispute was with regard to property.
In view of such the application, so far as it relates to petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 is allowed and the entire proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 13.1.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Kochas P.S. Case No. 115 of 2008 is hereby quashed.
As far as the case of petitioner no. 3 is concerned, it is permitted to be withdrawn to raise all the points at the relevant stage. However, the parties will be at liberty to settle their disputes, if they so desire.
(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Sanjay/-
***********************
FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress 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
No comments:
Post a Comment