- (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this application for quashing the order dated 4.7.2008 / 5.7.2008 passed by Shri D.K. Singh, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court VII, Ranchi, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief is that a case has been instituted on the basis of the Written report of the informant Anjali Kumari on 24.1.2006 stating therein that she was married with Chandreshwar Prasad, the petitioner no. 5 on 17.4.2003 according to the Hindu Rites and customs. Thereafter, the accused petitioners started torturing her as her father had given them less amount of Dowry. It is further alleged that the ornaments of rupees 50,000/ - kept in her Almirah, given by the informant's father to the informant, was taken by them. She has further stated that when she has conceived, all the accused persons administered medicine to her and result of which, her pregnancy was terminated. On the basis of this written report a case under section 498A, 313/34 of the I.P.C. and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against all the accused petitioners. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the instant case was filed on 24.1 .2006 as a counter blast of the matrimonial case being Matrimonial Title Suit (M.T.S.) No. 209/2005 filed on 12.12.2005 by the petitioner no. 5 Chandreshwar Prasad against his wife Anjali Kumari (the informant) for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce. It is further contended that the relationship between the parties had became tense due to cruel behavior of the informant and it was not possible to live together as such on 12.12.2005 the aforesaid matrimonial suit was filed by the petitioner nO.5 before the Principle Judge Family Court, Ranchi under section 13(1) (2 -a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The said suit was admitted on 4.1.2006 and registered notice was issued to the informant which was posted on 18.1.2006. Thus, it is very clear that after receiving the said notice, the informant maliciously instituted the instant case as the counter blast of the aforesaid Matrimonial Title Suit.
(3.) IT is further submitted that the date of occurrence as mentioned in the F.I.R. is from 22.4.2003 to August 2005 and the written report submitted for the same on 24.1.2006 after five months (approximately) of the alleged occurrence. Thus, this inordinate delay in filing the written report appears to be tainted with malafide intention. ;