Md. Modakkir Hashmi vs The State of Bihar

Heard both sides.

The petitioners of Cr. Misc. no. of 10108 of 2014 and the Cr.

Revision no. 643 of 2013 are the same and the matter relates to

Complaint Case no. C776 of 2012 under Section 498-A of the I.P.C.

In Cr. Misc. no. 10108 of 2014, the petitioners seek quashing of the

order dated 23.05.2013 passed by Sri Abhishek Ranjan, Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan whereunder cognizance for the offence

under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. was taken against the petitioners. In

Cr. Revision no. 643 of 2013, the petitioners seek to set aside the

order dated 23.07.2012 whereunder the order of Magistrate dismissing

the complaint case on the ground of jurisdiction, was set aside.

The facts, in brief, is that the O.P. no. 2 filed a complaint case

on the file of C.J.M. Siwan alleging inter alia that she was married

with the petitioner no. 1 on 08.05.2004. After marriage, she went at

the place of her husband where her husband and his family members

who are petitioners before this Court started torturing in various ways

as she could not give birth of a child even after six years of marriage.

Her husband performed second marriage with another lady and

thereafter they brutally assaulted and attempted to burn the

complainant (O.P. no. 2) by sprinkling kerosene oil. She was

compelled to leave the matrimonial house and then she started living

at her father''s place.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are the resident of Vaishali district where the complainant

was residing. The allegation of alleged torture relates to matrimonial

house situated at Vaishali. The petitioners did not visit at the paternal

place of the O.P. no. 2. There is no allegation that any of the

petitioners tortured the complainant at her matrimonial place at Siwan

and so the court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance with

respect to occurrence which allegedly occurred at Vaishali. He

further submits that the learned Magistrate had rightly dismissed the

complaint case of the complainant as per order dated 23.07.2012. The

complainant filed a Cr. Revision no. 183 of 2012 which was allowed

without considering the materials on records. The learned Addl.

Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order in mechanical manner

and so the order passed in Cr. Revision no. 183 of 2012 is also fit to

be set aside.

The learned counsel for the complainant and APP for the State

have submitted that the court below had jurisdiction to take

cognizance against these petitioners. The complainant was compelled

to leave the matrimonial house and so the offence of cruelty on

complainant (O.P. no. 2) persisted till the date of filing of the

complainant petition. There is absolutely no illegality and both the

aforesaid cases are fit to be dismissed.

On perusal of complaint petition and statement of complainant

on S.A., I find that the complainant had specifically alleged that these

petitioners started torturing her as she could not deliver any child even

after six years of her marriage. The used to call her as barren lady and

had threatened to commit her murder. She was ousted from the

house. The petitioners at one point of time had attempted to kill her.

She has alleged that the petitioners wanted her to leave the place and

commit suicide. The petitioners snatched her entire belongings and

ousted from their house. The complainant is residing at her father''s

place as a deserted lady. Admittedly, she is leading destitute life at

her father''s place which also amount to cruelty at the instance of the

petitioners. The offence of cruelty continued on account of her ouster

and during her stay at her parental place. The learned Addl. Sessions

Judge after being satisfied with the material on record has rightly

allowed the Cr. Revision of O.P. no. 2 directing the court below to re-

assess the materials on record. The learned Magistrate, accordingly,

examined the record and after going through the complaint petition

and statement of witnesses recorded during inquiry, has rightly taken

cognizance against all these petitioners.

In view of discussions made above, I do not find any merit in

the Cr. Misc. application as well Cr. Revision requiring any

interference in the impugned orders. Accordingly, both the

applications are dismissed.