Facts
The informant (Opposite Party No. 2), a resident of Nepal, married the petitioner, Chandan Kumar, on 11.03.2015
Source reference: p.3Subsequently, she filed two criminal cases (Purnea Mahila P.S. Case No. 45/2016 and Case No. 12/2017) alleging dowry demand of Rs. 5 lakhs, physical torture, and being ousted from her matrimonial home
Source reference: p.3-4The learned S.D.J.M., Purnea, took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 504/34 of the IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the Domestic Violence Act
Source reference: p.3During the pendency of these proceedings, a Family Court in Purnea granted a divorce, and the informant subsequently re-married and withdrew her transfer petitions from the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Source reference: p.4Issues
1. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 498(A) IPC and related statutes is sustainable when the parties have divorced and the informant has re-married
Source reference: p.4 / para. 7Law Applied
The court applied the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law
Source reference: p.4-5Proceeding with such cases after the dissolution of marriage and re-settlement of the parties would not serve the "interest of justice"
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
Evidence brought on record (Annexure-4) established that the informant had obtained a divorce from the learned Family Court, Purnea, and subsequently re-married
Source reference: p.4The Court reasoned that her withdrawal of transfer petitions before the Supreme Court and her current marital status suggested she was no longer interested in pursuing the litigation
Source reference: p.4allowing the prosecution to continue would result in unnecessary harassment for both parties and would be an exercise in futility given the complete severance of the matrimonial bond and the subsequent relocation of the informant to Nepal
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Court held that in light of the divorce and re-marriage, it was not in the interest of justice to proceed with the prosecution
The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the entire proceedings of Purnea Mahila P.S. Case No. 45 of 2016 and Purnea Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017
Source reference: p.5the Court granted the informant liberty to file a review application if she possessed information that could bear upon the outcome of the case
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
MOST. SAROJ DEVIvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in