The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for cautious scrutiny of complaints in matrimonial cases, especially in cases involving allegations under Section 498A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. A notice was issued upon the O.P.No.2 and the notice upon the O.P.No.2 has been effected. On 10.01.2022, on repeated call, nobody has responded inspite of the effective notice upon the O.P.no.2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P.No.2, the matter was adjourned and on that date it was directed to be listed on 10.03.2022.

3. Today, when the matter was taken up, nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioners.

4. It appears that O.P.No.2 is not willing to appear as inspite of the opportunity provided to the O.P.No.2, she has not appeared.

5. Accordingly, this petition is being heard in absence of O.P.No.2 and is being disposed of.

6. This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned ACJM, Bokaro in C.P.Case No.125 of 2014 and also the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Revision No.70 of 2019 whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioners has been rejected and the order dated 19.01.2019 has been affirmed.

7. The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint petition stating therein, in brief, that the marriage of the complainant Urvashi Poddar and accused no.1 Sanjay Kumar Poddar was solemnized on 18.06.1999 as per Hindu rituals at the paternal house of the complainant at Bokaro with consent and in presence of both the sides. The father of the complainant on the occasion of marriage and as per his financial capacity has given 30 bhar (grams) gold in the form of gold jewelry and 50 bhar silver in the form of silver jewelry total amounting to almost Rs.2,00,000/- as well as household things, steel and bronze utensils, watch gold ring and chain, Bajaj scooter etc., total amounting to almost Rs.60,000/- to the accused persons. Further under the pressure of the accused person, the fatehr of the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- in the account of accused no.1 in his Bank of India, Account No.2683, Bikas Bhawan, Ext. Counter Ranchi on 17.05.1999 and 24.05.1999. Again on 17.05.1999 a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the account of accused no.1 in his Indian Bank, Account No.10243 Sainik Bhawan Market, Ranchi and on 26.05.1999 at the residence of elder brother of accused no.1 namely Pradeep Kumar Poddar at Qtr. No.G.M.-53B, Bokaro Thermal had handed over two bundles of Rs.500 notes. On the occasion of Tilak, the father of the complainant handed over one boundle of Rs.500 to accused no.1. In this way the total amount of Rs.4,35,000/- has been given to the accused persons. On the next day of marriage i.e. 19.06.1999 the complainant after Bidaai went to her matrimonial house where she started living with her husband Sanjay Kumar Poddar, mother in law Tara Devi brother in law Pradip Kumar Poddar and sister in law Mamta Kumari. The reception of the complainant was held on 21.06.1999. The complainant continued living in her matrimonial home with all the tortures made out by the accused persons. At that point of time the accused no.1 and complainant were living in Ranchi and the complainant was continuously tortured by them. That whenever the complainant asked the accused no.1 to get her name registered in his service book, he used to abuse and beat her. In addition to that, he also said that until unless the demands are fulfilled the complainant’s name won’t be added in his service book. That every time the father of the complainant received a letter from her, he rushed to complainant’s matrimonial house to settle the matter, he was insulted and kicked out from the house. The complainant was any how living her life in her matrimonial home when she met a road accident on 10.12.2000, due to which she was hospitalized and all the expenses for the same were borne by her father as accused no.1 clearly denied to spend money for her treatme