Allegations of cruelty and coercion under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC must be established by leading evidence in course of trial, and the defense of the petitioner regarding the complainant's alleged adulterous relationship cannot be a ground for seeking quashing of the order of cognizance or the proceedings of the complaint case.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. By the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in Complaint Case No. 894 of 2006 whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offences under Sections 498-A and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

3. According to the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant, she was married to the petitioner on 03.12.2003 as per Hindu rites, ceremonies and customs at Nawadah. At the time of marriage, her father and brother had spent substantial amount of money and had given cash, ornaments, utensils and cloths as gift. After marriage, she was taken to her sasural at Delhi on 05.02.2003. On the very first day, her husband and relatives taunted that no dowry was paid in the marriage. They put a demand of Rs.1 lac from her. She stayed in her matrimonial house for about three and a half months. During her stay at New Delhi, she was subjected to cruelty in various ways. She was assaulted with belt and was also given electric shock by her husband, who used to allege that she was having adulterous relationship with her Jeeja (brother-in-law) Anil Sao. Somehow, her brother brought her back to her parents’ house. At that time, she was pregnant. She gave birth to a baby child at P.M.C.H., Patna on 12.09.2004. An effort was made by her brother and father for mediation and under threat and coercion, they paid Rs.1.50 lac to her husband. It is further alleged that on 18.10.2006, her husband came to Nawadah and stayed in the house of one Birendra Sao. On the same day, they came to her house and threatened her father and brother to give in writing that out of their own sweet will, they were dissolving the marriage and her husband Mahabir Gupta would be free to marry another girl. They also forced them to write that she was leading an adulterous relationship with her brother-in-law. When her father and brother refused to oblige, they threatened that they would ruin her life.

4. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and besides her, the witnesses to the complaint were also examined in course of inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant and the witnesses examined on her behalf supported the allegations made in the complaint in course of inquiry pursuant to which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, vide order dated 27.04.2007, summoned the petitioner and Birendra Sao to face trial for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 of the IPC.

5. The contentions of the petitioner are as under :-

(a) When the complainant joined the company of the petitioner, just after marriage, she was pregnant of two months.

(b) Having noticed the pregnancy of the complainant, the petitioner asked to her, whether she was having some relationship with someone from before the marriage?

(c) The complainant herself admitted and gave in writing in this regard that she was having relationship with her brother-in-law, Anil Sao from before her marriage.

(d) The complainant lived only for few months with the petitioner at Delhi and left his company on the pretext of going to her parental house at Nawadah. She also took away all the jewelries and belongings purchased by the petitioner for the complainant with her on the pretext that her mother wanted to see the jewelries.

(e) Since then, the complainant never came back to Delhi.

(f) Thus, the petitioner filed a matrimonial case in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi, vide H.M.A. No. 423 of 2007 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the complainant by a decree of divorce, which was allowed ex parte, vide judgment dated 24.12.2007.

(g) T