Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Anand And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.18548 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3516 Year- 2011 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPURNIA ===========================================================
1. Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Anand, S/O Ashok Choudhary @ Ramesh Chaudhary,
2. Ashok Chaudhary, S/O Mahendra Chaudhary, &
3. Veena Devi, W/O Ashok Chaudhary, all resident of Bhawanipur Chowk, Police Sttaion- Bhawanipur, District- Purnea.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Rani Devi, D/O Dinesh Sah, resident of Bhawanipur Chowk, Police StationBhawanipur, District- Purnea., at present resident of Dhamdaha (Uttar) Police Station - Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.
.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A. Khan, APP Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-09-2015 The Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in Complaint Case No.3516 of 2011.
The case of the Complainant is that he was married to the Petitioner No.1 on payment of some money and gifts but then she was tortured for ends of dowry and hence she filed the present Complaint.
It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that, in fact, they do not come within the purview of Section 498-A
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18548 of 2013 dt.22-09-2015 2/2 Indian Penal Code, inasmuch, as the Complainant was admittedly married to another person before the so called marriage with the Petitioner No.1. In such circumstances, when there was no valid marriage there was no question of the Petitioner No.1 being her husband and rest of the accused being relatives by such relationship. On the other hand, counsel for the Complainant submits that he cannot deny Annexure-2 which is a Divorce Petition filed on her behalf against her previous husband Dinesh Sah, but fact of the matter is that thereafter she was living with the Petitioner No.1 as his wife and, therefore, they should be put on trial. Having considered the legal proposition, the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in Complaint Case No.3516 of 2011 is hereby set aside. The application stands allowed.
(Anjana Prakash, J) JA/- U T