IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49013 of 2014 Arising Out of Case No.-74C Year-2012 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District-

Begusarai ======================================================

Vishnu Kant Pandit Son of Shivjee Pandit, Resident of village Mau Bazar, P.S. Vidyapati Nagar, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sanju Devi W/o Vishnu Kant Pandit, D/o Baleshwar Pandit Resident of village Mau Bazar, P.S. Vidyapati Nagar, District - Samastipur. Present address resident of village Rani, P.S. Bachhwara, District - Begusarai, Naihar's Address - Jalalpur, P.S. - Dalsingsarai, District - Samastipur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Complainant : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.P.P.

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) for the following relief:

“That this is an application for quashing the Order dated 12.7.12 in Complaint Case No. 74C/12 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby and where under Cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 498(A), 323, 379/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.”

3. The opposite party no. 2, who was the wife of the petitioner, had filed the complaint case alleging demand of dowry, torture and also assault.

4. The petitioner had married the opposite party no. 2 on

24.07.2010 before the Special Marriage Officer, Registration Department, Samastipur. The complaint states that she was married to Sanjay Pandit who died seven years ago and from whom she had three children and that it was the petitioner who had proposed for marriage which was accepted by the family members of the opposite party no. 2 and thereafter the same was solemnized before the Special Marriage Officer. The opposite party no. 2 has alleged that thereafter demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- cash and one motorcycle was made due to which she was tortured mentally and physically and finally on 08.01.2012 it is alleged that the accused, including the petitioner, had come to her place at Begusarai and had assaulted her. The complaint case was filed on 10.01.2012.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the maternal uncle of the petitioner and, thus, there could not have been any marriage as the relationship comes within the prohibited zone under the Hindu Marriage Act. It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has made false allegations only to put pressure on the petitioner and his family members to keep her. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had already filed Divorce Case No. 152 of 2011 on 08.09.2011 before the Court at Begusarai and the present case is only by way of a counter-blast to the said case. It was submitted that the ground taken for seeking divorce was that the opposite party no. 2 had left the matrimonial home of the petitioner and was living in her first matrimonial home. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure required for the Court below before issuing process as stipulated in Section 202(1) of the Code has not been followed. For such proposition, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. reported as (2013) Supreme Court Cases 435. It was submitted that no cause of action having taken place in the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Begusarai, the proceeding itself before the Court below was not maintainable as all allegations relate to Samastipur. For such proposition, learned counsel