Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the petitioner has questioned the continuance of the entire criminal proceeding and also the legality of order dated 20.8.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 8 of 2003 arising out of C1/Case No. 83 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence under Ss. 498 -A/494 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and a direction has been given to issue summons to the petitioner. The prosecution case, as it appears from the complaint petition, in short, is that the daughter of the complainant was married with the petitioner on 9.2.1998 under the Special Marriage Act without the consent of the complainant and her father but almost after six months of marriage, the petitioner as well as other accused persons started demanding dowry and due to non -fulfillment of their demand, she was subjected to physical and mental torture at the hands of the accused persons. Whereafter her daughter was treated in various hospitals at Cuttack, Varanasi, Lucknow and she is still admitted in T.M.H., Jamshedpur. It is also alleged that the complainant anyhow came to know that the petitioner has solemnized his another marriage with one Tanu Kumari and thereafter this complaint case was filed.
(2.) It appears from the record that the complaint case was referred to the police station and thereafter First Information Report was lodged and after investigation the police submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioner under Ss. 498 -A/494 of the Indian Penal Code. The court finding strong prima facie case against the petitioner, took cognizance of the offence and directed to issue summons to the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order taking cognizance as perverse and bad in law submitted that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceeding as the petitioner as well as the daughter of the complainant has already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in Matrimonial Suit No. 436 of 2001 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur and the marriage has already been dissolved by the order dated 11.6.2002. It was also submitted that the present case has been lodged by the mother -in -law of the petitioner and it is a sheer wastage of valuable court's time. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of Principal Judge, Family Court dated 11.6.2002 dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant is enclosed as Annexure -3 with this petition and after the said order of dissolution of marriage, the present case has been filed with ulterior motive to harass this petitioner.;