AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application for quashing is directed against order
dated 17.12.2013 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Barh in Complaint Case
No.170 of 2011 whereby he declined to discharge the petitioners.
Thus rejected a petition filed under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C.
The allegation as levelled in the complaint case in
brief is that she was married 10 years back with Ranjeet Kumar
thereafter these petitioners father-in-law, mother-in-law and married
Nanad started torturing her for further demand of dowry but not the husband. The complainant is a teacher in government school and on
transfer she started living at Mokamah.
It is alleged that on 8.4.2011 in the morning the
accused persons made an attempt to strangulate her and they also
assaulted her husband.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that complainant''s husband is not an accused in
this case lodged by the complainant she is a government teacher in a
government school so employed and earning salary and living with
her husband separately. In fact, this case was lodged by the
complainant at the behest of her husband Ranjeet Kumar as they used
to insist on partition. Accordingly, the husband filed a partition suit
no.141 of 2012 before this proceeding also and proceeding under
Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against both sides and earlier
complaint filed by father-in-law petitioner no.1 against his son
Ranjeet Kumar and Kiran Kumari in Complaint Case No.369 of 2010,
therefore, to put pressure for partition and to satisfy the personal
vengeance this case has been filed.
Having considered rival submissions and on perusal
of record, this Court is of the view that the present complaint has been
filed by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to satisfy the
personal vengeance. It appears that the complainant and her husband
are living together. There is no allegation against the husband for
committing torture of releasing of further demand of dowry.
Complainant is a teacher in a government school and it appears that
husband has filed partition suit also against his father and brothers and
petitioner no.4 Ranjana Devi is married Nanad having no concern
with the demand of dowry and she lives with her husband in another
village and Mukesh Kumar is the brother-in-law of petitioner no.2
Binay Kumar another son of petitioner no.1 is residing in Arunachal
Pradesh so far away even he is made accused in this case. So the
present case appears malicious in nature and continuation of the
proceeding would be abuse of the process of the Court.
Therefore, for aforesaid reason the impugned order
dated 17.12.2013 with respect to petitioners as well as further criminal
proceeding against them in Complaint Case No.170 of 2011 is hereby
set aside.
In the result, this application stands allowed.