RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned APP for the State and Mr. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2014, whereby the order dated dated 16.04.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with P.R. Case No. 106 of 2012 (T.R. No. 215 of 2014 allowing the application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been affirmed.
(3.) It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the opposite party No. 2 himself admitted that there was a family partition and therefore the question of the petitioner usurping the entire property of the father-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 becomes redundant. It has further been stated that all the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 are related to her. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and if the version of the opposite party No. 2 is taken to be correct, the petitioner was the original owner of the house in question and therefore no case under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is made out. It has further been submitted that complaint cases being P.C.R. Case No. 149 of 2009 and P.C.R. Case No. 151 of 2010 had been instituted by opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel thus submits that institution of several cases including the present one points to the fact that the opposite party No. 2 by some means or the other wants to grab the property left by her father-in-law. It has also been submitted that a suit being Partition Suit No. 46 of 2014 has also been filed by the husband of the opposite party No. 2.;