SUBHASH CHANDRA GOSWAMI AND ANR Vs. COL ARUN KUMAR SARMA RETD
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-20
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 09,2018

Subhash Chandra Goswami And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
Col Arun Kumar Sarma Retd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - (1.) By this application u/s 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10/06/2015 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) taking cognizance against the petitioners, as well as, the proceeding in C.R.Case No. 3336C /2014 u/s 495/109/34 IPC.
(2.) Respondent No. 1, as complainant lodged a complaint against the present petitioners alleging commission of offences u/s 406/420/495 IPC. It was alleged in the complaint, that the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 were friends since their school days and they knew each other's family. In the month of March, 2009, the petitioners visited the house of the respondent No. 1 with a proposal of their daughter's marriage with the son of the complainant and handed over the horoscope of their daughter for matching. After consulting the astrologer, the respondent No. 1 having found that the horoscope of his son and that of petitioners' daughter did not match, expressed his inability to accept the proposal. Later on, when the petitioner No. 1 met the respondent No. 1 in a party of the officers club in the month of June, 2011, the petitioner No. 1 informed that marriage of her daughter was fixed with a London based doctor. However, later on, the petitioners informed the respondent No. 1, that the marriage of their daughter with the London based doctor was cancelled and they were looking for a groom for their daughter. One Ambika Prasad Sarma, who had many information of eligible bachelors, was requested to search for a groom for the daughter of the petitioners. Said Ambika Prasad Sarma informed the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners were interested in the son of the respondent No. 1. In the month of December, 2011, there was a birthday party, where the petitioners and respondent No. 1, as well as, the daughter of the petitioners and also the son, daughter and son-in-law of the respondent No. 1 were present. Having seen the daughter of the petitioners in the birthday party, the son-in-law of the respondent No. 1 was impressed and he proposed for marriage of the daughter of the petitioners and the son of the respondent No. 1, whereupon respondent No. 1 told that he had no objection if his son agrees. At the instance of both the families, the respective groom and bride were allowed to meet 2/3 times to know each other and ultimately the son of the respondent No. 1 agreed to the proposal of marriage with the daughter of the petitioners. Accordingly, the marriage was solemnized and after marriage, the son of the respondent No. 1 went to Japan, where he was working and after few days, the daughter of the petitioners was also sent to Japan. However, they could not pull on well together and the daughter of the petitioners came back to India and lodged a complaint against the son of the respondent No. 1 u/s 498-A/325/506 IPC. After the son of the respondent No. 1 received summons, he informed his parents. When the daughter of the petitioners lodged the complainant u/s 498-A IPC against the son of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 started to enquire about the antecedents of his daughter-in-law and came to know that she was earlier married with the London based doctor, who divorced her by a decree of divorce dated 07/12/2012 and the said fact of marriage and divorce was not disclosed to the respondent No. 1. It was also stated that he came to know that the daughter of the petitioners had extra-marital relation with one Agyat Rai Singh Suri and that was the reason for divorce by her former husband. After having collected those information, the respondent No. 1 lodged the complaint stating that they were cheated by the petitioners by not disclosing about the earlier marriage and antecedents of their daughter and therefore, the C.R.Case No. 3336C/2014 u/s 495/109/34 IPC was lodged.
(3.) Learned Magistrate upon consideration of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 and on examining the complainant u/s 200 CrPC, took cognizance against the petitioners u/s 495/109/34 IPC and issued process.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.