Judgment:
ORDER
Abhijit Sinha, J.
1. The four petitioners are arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 1067 of 2006 and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 30.3.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 504, 384 I.P.C. and summons have been issued against the petitioners.
2. Ravita Devi @ Ravita Kuwar, the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp. Party No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A, 504, 406, 384, 420 I.P.C., 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as also Section 27 of the Arms Act at the hands of the four petitioners on 15.11.2007. According to the complainant, her marriage with Krishna Kumar Singh, since deceased, was solemnized on 24th May, 2001 according to Hindu rites and rituals and on the occasion of the marriage, the brother of the complainant had presented clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 2 Lacs to the in-laws of the complainant and notwithstanding the same, the in-laws made demand for a motorcycle by way of additional dowry which too was fulfilled by giving a Suzuki motorcycle worth Rs. 40,000/-. It is alleged that her husband was murdered when miscreants attempted to steal the motorcycle and following the death of the husband, the complainant was further subjected to torture and cruelty. It is further alleged that on 9.10.2006, the complainant was taken by the petitioners to the matrimonial home after performance of bidai where she was kept with dignity After the passage of three or four days, the nanads of the complainant, Baby Devi and Mini Devi, came there from their respective matrimonial homes and with their arrival the entire scenario changed and all the accused persons started subjecting the complainant to torture apart from taunting her. She was subjected to assault by the nanads who also instigated her parents in-law to assault her. They also accused her for the death of her husband and gave out that she would not be permitted to live in peace. Eventually, on 15.11.2006 she was forcibly made to put her thumb impression on 3-4 sheets of blank paper and when she objected she was assaulted and at the point of Katta her thumb impression was obtained on three sheets of blank paper and thereafter on the alleged instigation of Baby Devi, her hands and legs were tied with intention to kill but on her raising alarm people of the neighbourhood arrived and she managed to escape to her parental home at Bhabhua.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the present complaint case is false, frivolous, vexatious and oppressive. In this connection, it was submitted that although the marriage was performed as far back as 24.5.2001, the complaint came to be lodged in the year, 2006 much after the death of the husband and till such time which was spread over a period of five years, there had been no occasion for the complainant to make any allegation against the petitioners. It was also submitted that prior to the filing of the present complaint, the complainant had lodged Complaint Case No. 57 of 2005 wherein cognizance was taken under Section 498A I.P.C. and the present complaint has also been filed on the same set of facts mentioned in the earlier complaint and only the date of occurrence is said to have been changed and in that view of the matter the petitioners are now forced into facing a situation of double jeopardy. It was also submitted that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts of her having earlier filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 57 of 2007 and as a matter of fact these cases had been filed only for building pressure on the petitioners to give her a share in the family property notwithstanding the fact that she had already filed a Partition Suit No. 257 of 2005 which is pending in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Kaimur, wherein she had claimed 1/4th share. It was also submitted that Maintenance Case No. 7 of 2006 was filed by the complainant demanding maintenance from petitioner No. 1, the father-in-law, which was dismissed by the order dated 3.12.2006 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur at Bhabhua holding that the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable since the law does not permit claim of maintenance from the father-in-law.
4. I have had the occasion to peruse the complaint petition. The allegation of alleged cruelty is said to have started from 15.11.2006 but there is not allegation of her being subjected to cruelty prior thereto. Even otherwise the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and except for the particular overt act said to have been committed on 15.11.2006 there is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners.
5. There is another aspect of the matter. The complainant does not appear to have approached the court with clean hands inasmuch as she has suppressed the fact of having filed Complaint Case No. 57 of 2005 wherein cognizance had been taken and had also suppressed the material fact of her Maintenance Case No. 7 of 2006 having been dismissed by the learned Principal Judge and of having filed Partition Suit No. 257 of 2005 claiming 1/4th share in the property of her matrimonial home.
6. Although, notice was duly served on Opp. Party No. 2, she has failed to put in an appearance and contest the instant application. Therefore, submissions and factual aspects placed before this Court remain unrebutted.
7. Due regard being had to the facts that the complainant had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts in order to influence the court and in view of the fact that earlier complaint being Complaint Case No. 57 of 2005 had already been filed wherein cognizance had been taken, I am of the opinion that the instant case apart from being vexatious and oppressive was an abuse of the process of the court which cannot be sustained in law.
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.