- (1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated
(2.) 12.2003 passed in CP Case No. 264/2003, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that marriage of Bikrant Pratap Singh (opposite party No. 2) was solemnized with Smt. Madhu Singh (petitioner) at the residence of Bijendra Singh and Smt. Kusma Devi at village Sirsaganj P.S. Sirsaganj. District Firojabad and after marriage Smt. Madhu Singh came to the House of Bikrant Pratap Singh but she was having very indifferent attitude and also she was frustrated in her conjugal life and she always used to say that she does not like to live at Bokaro with opposite party No. 2 and on one and other pretext she always desired to go to her father 'shouse. Some time after opposite - party No. 2 came to know that the father and mother of Madhu Singh do not like that Madhu Singh should lead her conjugal life with opposite party No. 2 and they always used to take Madhu Singh from the house of opposite party No. 2 on one pretext or other. It appears that father and mother of Madhu Singh intended to marry Madhu Singh (petitioner) with another person. In June, 2003 father of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No.2 went to the residence of Bijendra Singh to bring Madhu Singh but bidai was refused and at the instance of opposite party No. 2 and his father a panchayati was convened on 27.6.2003 and according to the direction of punches bidai was given with opposite party No. 2 and petitioner Madhu Singh came to her matrimonial house. After arrival of Madhu Singh at Bokaro, she maintained indifferent attitude in the domestic work as well as in her conjugal life with the opposite party No. 2. On 28.7.2003 petitioners Bijendra Singh and Kusma Devi and Sanjay Singh came to the quarter of opposite party No. 2 and they wanted to take Madhu Singh (petitioner No.1) back and they even wanted that there may be divorce in between petitioner - Madhu Singh and opposite party No. 2 as, it appeared that they have settled the marriage of Madhu Singh somewhere else. But, opposite party No. 2 and his father wanted to keep Madhu Singh as daughter -in -law. Due to much insistence by the other co -accused, an agreement was arrived at that relationship of husband and wife between petitioner Madhu Singh and opposite party No. 2 shall stand cut -off from 29.7.2003 and all the concerned persons came to Civil Court 'spremises and two affidavits were sworn by petitioner No. 1 giving talak and opposite party No. 2 also swore affidavit about the divorce of his conjugal life and also deed of dissolution of marriage was executed before the Notary Public and on the same day in the evening of 29th July, 2003 the petitioners remained in the quarter of opposite party No. 2 and about that time opposite party No. 2 had gone out for urgent work and his father went to the market of the opposite party No. 2 with fists and slaps and they also tied her hand by rope and petitioner Bijendra Singh snatched away golden chain alongwith locket valued at Rs. 7000/ - and petitioner Kusma Devi snatched her earrings and ring and petitioner Madhu Singh took out Rs.15,000/ - from the Godrej of the opposite party No. 2 and co -accused took the suitcase etc. and a complaint case was filed against all the accused persons, who are petitioner here under Sections 380, 323, 506, 352 and 341, IPC. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Madhu Singh, who was married to opposite party No. 2 was badly tortured and assaulted by the family of the opposite party No. 2 for demand of dowry and even alter much negotiations the family members of the opposite party No. 2 did not give up their cruel and torturous behaviour towards petitioner Madhu Singh and petitioner Madhu Singh filed Sirsaganj P.S. Case No. 202/2003 dated 24.8.2003 under Sections 498 -A, 323 and 504, IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before the Sirsaganj police station and thereafter, in order to save himself and his family members, the opposite party No. 2 has filed this case on 28.8.2003 after Sirsaganj P.S. Case No.202/2003 filed by the petitioner Madhu Singh. It was further pointed out that petitioner Madhu Singh was never allowed to talk with her parents by her in -laws and on 27.6.2003 they took her to Bokaro and on 29.7.2003 they forced her to sign a paper, which later suggests that divorce has taken place in between her and her husband -opposite party No. 2. It was further pointed out that on 24.8.2003 at about 2 p.m. opposite party No. 2, his mother, two sisters and brother -in -law came to their village Sodhra and called them for panchayati and there all the family members of the opposite party No. 2 assaulted the petitioner Madhu Singh with fist and feet and abused her in filthy language and thereafter petitioner Madhu Singh lodged Sirsaganj P.S. Case No. 202/2003, it is also submitted that this complaint ease has been filed only to pressurize the petitioners to come to a settlement with the opposite party No. 2 and his family members.
(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the complaint case bearing No. 264/2003 has been filed prior to the filing of the Sirsaganj P.S.Case No. 202/2003 but on perusal of complaint petition of complaint ease No. 264/2003 it appears that under the same date of occurrence date has been changed by manipulating and under the heading "date of occurrence 28.8.2003" has been changed as 29.7.2003 and "at about 8 p.m." has been changed to "at about 6 p.m." with the intention to show that this complaint case has been filed after lodging of the FIR, but date occurrence has been shown to be prior from the date of lodging of FIR.;