Sunil Kumar, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

Sunil Kumar, and ors. vs State of Bihar, and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Jul 20, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/915457

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/915457
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Anjana Prakash, J.
Decided On: Jul 20, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21293 OF 2004
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Aftab Alam ; R.M. Lodha, JJ.] The respondent worked in the appellant-bank as Cashier-cum-Clerk. The enquiry was first fixed on November 15, 1994 but on that date the respondent did not appear without giving any intimation to the Enquiry Officer. Due to his non- appearance the enquiry was adjourned to November 28, 1...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act - Section 12(1)(d)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar, and ors.

Advocate Mr. Debendra Kumar Sinha' Mr. Baleshwar Kamat; Mr. Krishna Mohan; Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advs.

Respondent

State of Bihar, and anr.

Advocate Mr. Nand Kumar, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act - Section 12(1)(d)

Excerpt

[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] the respondent worked in the appellant-bank as cashier-cum-clerk. the enquiry was first fixed on november 15, 1994 but on that date the respondent did not appear without giving any intimation to the enquiry officer. due to his non- appearance the enquiry was adjourned to november 28, 1994. after recording his evidence, the enquiry officer closed the enquiry and submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of all the charges. the industrial tribunal found and held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice. it appears that from the bank this letter was not handed over to the enquiry officer. admittedly, the respondent had not appeared for the enquiry on two earlier dates. in those circumstances and having regard to the fact that the witness intended to be examined by the management in support of the charge had come in connection with that enquiry from delhi to dehradun for the third time, the enquiry officer decided to proceed with the enquiry and examine him ex parte. pw.1 happened to be the branch manager where the respondent was posted at the material time and where the misappropriation was committed by him......behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 was married to the complainant on 11.3.2003 but the entire story of torture for ends of dowry is nothing but an effort to screen her from the actions taken by the petitioner no. 1 against her.6. fact of the matter is that when the complainant came to live with the petitioner no. 1 and rest of the family in delhi, the accused persons learnt that she was pregnant and was, therefore, taken to a diagnostic centre where it was revealed that she was carrying pregnancy from before the marriage. at this, the parents of the complainant were summoned to delhi and in their presence, the further ultrasound was done which also revealed the age of foetus more than the duration of marriage of the complainant to the petitioner no. 1 on account of which the parents of the complainant took her back to bhagalpur and since then she was living there.7. since the petitioner no. 1 did not wish to continue the matrimonial relationship with the complainant, he filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under section 12(1) (d) of hindu marriage act, on 23.7.2003.8. notices were sent to the complainant on 6.8.2003 and 11.9.2003 as also 18.9.2003 but she refused to appear before the court concerned.9. during the pendency of the divorce case, the petitioner no. 1 also sent a registered notice to the complainant not to terminate her pregnancy since it was a vital proof of the reason for annulment of marriage. the submission is that after an action was taken by the petitioner no. 1, the present complaint has been filed on 12.9.2003.10. it is not worthy that the complainant despite notice, did not appear in the divorce proceeding and the court concerned after taking evidence of the petitioner no. 1 and the medical practitioner and technicians who testified the victim's pregnancy even before the date of marriage decreed in favour of the petitioner no. 1.11. the opposite party no. 2 has merely stated that no submission can be made on the.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire Complaint Case No. 1263 of 2003 pending before the S.D.J.M. Bhagalpur including the order dated 23.12.2003 by which he has taken cognizance in the matter as also the order dated 30.6.2004 by which Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Civil Revision No. 229 of 2004 has dismissed the revision application filed against the order of cognizance.

2. On 17.8.2004, notices were issued to the opposite party no. 2 and the matter was admitted for hearing with an interim order of stay of further proceeding in the court below.

3. Today, both the parties are present in Court and advance their rival submissions.

4. The case of the Complainant is that she had married the petitioner no. 1 on 11.3.2003 and, thereafter, had gone to live with her inlaws in Jamalpur but she was tortured for ends of dowry on account of which the Complainant's father paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused persons. Thereafter, the Complainant is said to have gone to Delhi to live with her inlaws but she was not treated well on account of which she fell ill and then her father came to Delhi and took her back to Bhagalpur.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was married to the Complainant on 11.3.2003 but the entire story of torture for ends of dowry is nothing but an effort to screen her from the actions taken by the petitioner no. 1 against her.

6. Fact of the matter is that when the Complainant came to live with the petitioner No. 1 and rest of the family in Delhi, the accused persons learnt that she was pregnant and was, therefore, taken to a Diagnostic Centre where it was revealed that she was carrying pregnancy from before the marriage. At this, the parents of the Complainant were summoned to Delhi and in their presence, the further Ultrasound was done which also revealed the age of foetus more than the duration of marriage of the Complainant to the petitioner no. 1 on account of which the parents of the Complainant took her back to Bhagalpur and since then she was living there.

7. Since the petitioner no. 1 did not wish to continue the matrimonial relationship with the Complainant, he filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 12(1) (d) of Hindu Marriage Act, on 23.7.2003.

8. Notices were sent to the Complainant on 6.8.2003 and 11.9.2003 as also 18.9.2003 but she refused to appear before the court concerned.

9. During the pendency of the divorce case, the petitioner no. 1 also sent a registered notice to the Complainant not to terminate her pregnancy since it was a vital proof of the reason for annulment of marriage. The submission is that after an action was taken by the petitioner no. 1, the present complaint has been filed on 12.9.2003.

10. It is not worthy that the Complainant despite notice, did not appear in the divorce proceeding and the court concerned after taking evidence of the petitioner no. 1 and the Medical Practitioner and Technicians who testified the victim's pregnancy even before the date of marriage decreed in favour of the petitioner No. 1.

11. The opposite party no. 2 has merely stated that no submission can be made on the developments which took place but I am not ready to accept this proposition since notices were sent to the opposite party no. 2 way back of 17.8.2004 and no rebuttal is forthcoming on any of the facts placed before this Court by the petitioners.

12. Considering that the complaint is nothing but in abuse of the process of the Court, in the background of the case, I am of the view that the application should be allowed.

13. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Complaint Case No. 1263 of 2003 by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners and the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Cr. Rev. No. 229 of 2004 dismissing the application are hereby quashed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2010 Same Parties Sunil Kumar, and ors. vs State of Bihar, and anr. Same Subject Family Same Judge Anjana Prakash, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act - Section 12(1)(d)

Family