LAWS(PAT)-2007-2-100

SUMAN KUMAR VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 13, 2007
SUMAN KUMAR VERMA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four petitioners herein who have been made to figure as accused in complaint Case No. 2268. of 2004 are aggrieved by order dated 27.4.2005 passed therein by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, and have sought to question the propriety thereof through this application. By the aforesaid order the learned Magistrate on finding a prima facie case under Sec.364 I.P.C. to have been made out against the accused persons has summoned them.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as culled out from the complaint petition filed by O.P. No. 2 herein, inter alia, is that the marriage of his daughter, Punam Devi, was solemnized with Dilip Kumar Mandal (petitioner no. 1 herein) on 16.6.1991 and three children were born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that the first year after the gauna passed off peacefully for Punam Devi but thereafter accused nos. 1 to 3 started demanding Rs. 25,000.00 in cash, one T.V. set and one motor cycle and for the non -fulfilment thereof the accused persons did not permit the bidaigiri of Punam Devi. Consequently, Punam lodged a F.I.R. against the accused, being Kadwa RS. Case No. 149/95 and also a Maintenance Case being No. 76/95, both which were disposed of on amicable compromise. It is said that petitioner no. 1 got married to petitioner no. 4, Meena Devi, before the compromise was recorded and in the year 2002 following the compromise Punam Devi was taken back to her marital home. It is further alleged that when Punam Devi became pregnant and the accused persons did not care for her, the complainant brought her to his house after performing bidai in August, 2002 and ever since Punam has been residing in her maika as the accused persons did not take her back on the plea that it was not possible to manage two wives and their children and requesting Punam Devi to stay in her naihar executed an agreement on 9.4.2004 to the effect that all his share would be given to Punam Devi. However, he also surreptitiously filed matrimonial Suit No. 27/2004 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is said that Punam Devi returned to her sasural on 2.7.2004 and has been staying there. It is the complainant 'scase that although the District Judge, Katihar, directed Dilip Kumar Mandal to appear in court alongwith Punam Devi, Dilip never brought Punam to the court and on visiting the sasural of Punam Devi, the complainant found her absent. He also learnt from a petition filed in court by Dilip Mandal that Punam Devi had left her sasural on 4.10.2004. The complainant was apprehensive that his daughter had been abducted and hence the complaint petition.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case as would be evident from the report of the Officer -in -Gharge. It has also been submitted that petitioner no. 2 had already filed Complaint Case No. 2239/04 after Punam left her sasural.