Vikas Dubey @ Saroj Dubey & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr

Patna High Court – Orders
Vikas Dubey @ Saroj Dubey & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 1 May, 2009
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          Cr.Misc. No.715 of 2007
1.   VIKAS DUBEY @ SAROJ DUBEY , SON OF RAM MUNI DUBEY.
2.   KAMLA DEVI, WIFE OF RAM MUNI DUBEY.
3.   RAM MUNI DUBEY, SON OF LATE SURENDRA DUBEY.
     ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAJPUTANA, KALI ASTHAN, PANI TANKI
     WARD NO.10, DEHRI-ON-SONE, P.S. DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.
4.   ANITA DEVI @ MAMTA DEVI, WIFE OF SANJAY PANDEY, RESIDENT OF
     VILLAGE -KHANAR, P.O. MANIHARI, P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT-
     KAIMUR(BHABHUA).
5.   PUSHPA DEVI, WIFE OF PANKAJ TIWARI, RESIDENT OF BHABHUA, P.S.
     BHABHUA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR(BHABHUA).
     .......................................................................................PETITIONERS.

                                         Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. SABITA DEVI, WIFE OF VIKAS DUBEY @ SAROJ DUBEY, RESIDENT OF
   MOHALLA-RAJPUTANA, PANI TANKI, KALI ASTHAN, WARD NO.10, DEHRI-
   ON-SONE, P.S. DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTRICT-ROHTAS, AT PRESENT RESIDENT
   OF VILLAGE-RAJPUR, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.
   ...............................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                        -----------

                                          With

                                Cr.Misc. No.827 of 2007

1. VIKAS DUBEY @ SAROJ DUBEY, SON OF SHRI RAM MUNI DUBEY.
2. RAM MUNI DUBEY, SON OF LATE SURENDRA DUBEY.
3. KAMLA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI RAM MUNI DUBEY.
   ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-PANITANKI, WARD NO.10, KALI MANDIR,
   DEHRI-ON-SONE, P.S. DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.
4. ANITA DEVI @ MAMTA DEVI, WIFE OF SANJAY PANDEY, RESIDENT OF
   VILLAGE KHANAR, P.O. MANIHARI, P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT-
   KAIMUR(BHABHUA).
5. PUSHPA DEVI, WIFE OF PANKAJ TIWARY, RESIDENT OF BHABHUA P.O.
   AND P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR(BHABHUA).
   .....................................................................................PETITIONERS.

                                         Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. SABITA DEVI, WIFE OF VIKAS DUBEY @ SAROJ DUBEY, RESIDENT OF
   VILLAGE RAJAPUR, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS.
   ..............................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                        -----------

For the Petitioners in both the cases   : M/s. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocates and Ashok
                                            -2-




                                       Kumar Dubey, Advocate.
For the State                         : Mr. Abdus Salam, A.P.P(in Criminal Misc. No.715
                                        Of 2007) and Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P(in Criminal
                                        Misc. No.827 of 2007).
For O.P. No.2 in both the cases       : M/s. Awadhesh Kumar and Arun Kumar Mandal,
                                        Advocates.

                                        ----------------

                                       O R D E R

Both these cases have been taken up together since the parties in both the cases happen to be the same and involve common questions of law and having been heard together they are being disposed of by this common order.

The facts of the case may be stated in brief.

Cr. Misc. No.715 of 2007 This application has been filed by the petitioners who have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No.397 of 2003 which on being sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Nasriganj (Rajpur) P.S. Case No.144 of 2003 has been registered under Sections 498- A, 323 and 406 I.P.C. as also Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The allegation by the complainant/informant, Sabita Devi, the wife of petitionerno.1, Vikas Dubey alias Saroj Dubey, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, is that her marriage with petitioner No.1, Vikas Dubey alias Saroj Dubey was solemnized on 1.5.1995 and gauna was performed on 29.2.1996 and by way of gift motorcycle, ornaments, clothes and household articles were given. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law and petitioner nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of the husband and they alongwith the husband did not appear to be satisfied with the gifts given by the father of the informant and they started torturing the informant mentally and physically. It is said that two sons were born out of the wedlock and being minors are living with opposite party no.2. It is also alleged that she was oft and on assaulted by the petitioners as her father was not able to provide another motorcycle and very often she was deprived of food and water. It was further alleged that at the instigation of the in-laws the husband dropped her alongwith the children at her parental home on an understanding that he would return after 20 days to take her back and it was expected that by that time her father would be in a position to arrange a motorcycle. It is further said that some time in May she was brought back alongwith the sons to the matrimonial home and in view of the demand of motorcycle not being fulfilled, petitioner nos.2, 4 and 5 tried to prevent her from entering into the house which however was frustrated. It is further alleged that the petitioners continued with their torturing as a result whereof she became ill and went back to her parental home for getting treated. It is said that she filed Complaint Case No.136 © of 2001 on 11.5.2001 before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj which, however, was subsequently withdrawn on verbal assurances given by the petitioners that she would not be subjected to further torture and that she would be taken back immediately. However, although the case ended on 15.2.2002, she was never taken back to the matrimonial home. In the meanwhile, her father expired on 10.12.2002 and when she went to the matrimonial home she was further assaulted and she was given to understand by the husband that as he had filed a divorce case against her she would not be permitted to remain in the matrimonial home. Around this time she also came to know that the husband wanted to enter into another marriage. Efforts by the well wishers of O.P. No.2 to compromise and compound the differences met with no success.

Cr. Misc. No.827 of 2007 The petitioners who are the same as that of Criminal Misc. No.715 of 2007 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 7.1.2006 passed in Complaint Case No.59 of 2005 by Sri Binod Kumar Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rohtas at Sasaram wherein cognizance was taken for commission of offences under Sections 323 and 379 I.P.C. In the instant case, the self same Sabita Devi filed the complaint case on 20.1.2005 inter alia alleging that her marriage with petitioner no.1 was solemnized on1.5.1995 and the gauna took place on 29.2.1996 and two sons were born out of the wedlock. After reiterating the facts stated in the earlier case she has further alleged that the petitioners had in categoric terms stated that the petitioner no.1 would enter into matrimonial relationship with another and she would not be allowed to remain in the matrimonial home and she was pressurized to give divorce to him. It is further alleged that as she did not agree to the proposal she was assaulted with fists and slaps by petitioner nos.4 and 5 and petitioner no.3 is alleged to have taken away a titan wrist watch worth Rs.1000/- from her wrist. It is further stated that petitioner no.5 had taken away two tops from her ear worth Rs.7500/- and she was assaulted by petitioner nos.3 to 5. The further allegation is that petitioner no.2 wanted her signature on certain papers by force.

Opposite Party No.2 has appeared in both the cases and whereas she has filed a counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. No.715 of 2007, no counter affidavit has been filed in Criminal Misc. No.827 of 2007.

The primary issue raised by the petitioners is that the present cases have been filed by the opposite party no.2 with the malafide intention of reeking vengeance and to extract money from the petitioners. This would be apparent from the fact that a series of cases have been filed by opposite party no.2 against the petitioners. In this connection, it was submitted that Complaint Case No.359(C) of 2001 under Section 498A and 448 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had been filed by the father of opposite party no.2 against the petitioners which was subsequently dismissed as the complainant did not wish to proceed with the case any further. Thereafter Complaint Case No.136(C) of 2001 was filed on 11.5.2001 against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 I.P.C. which was also dismissed as withdrawn subsequently. Thereafter Complaint Case No.397 of 2003 was filed which gave rise to Nasriganj(Rajpur) P.S. Case No.144 of 2003(which gave rise to Criminal Misc. No.715 of 2007). Not satisfied therewith Sasaram Nagar P.S. Case No.511 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498-A I.P.C. was filed against the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 as also against one Sri Jitendra Dubey, an Advocate of Sasaram Court who was conducting the cases on behalf of the petitioners. Thereafter Complaint Case No.59 of 2005(the subject matter of Criminal Misc. No.827 of 2007) was filed.

On perusal of the allegations made in all these cases through complaint petitions and fardbeyan annexed by the petitioners, it is apparent that opposite party no.2 in both the cases had deliberately filed these cases against the petitioners practically on the same set of allegations which prima facie leads to a presumptive opinion that the same were not bonafide. It clearly goes to show that these allegations are a modus operandi manifestly with the ulterior motive of reeking vengeance on the petitioners and of pressurising and forcing them into frivolous and vexatious litigation. The attempt by O.P. No.2 and her father to implicate the petitioners in a series of litigation based manifestly on similar facts, time and again, only goes to show the frivolous and vexatious approach and mentality that they are carrying to get the petitioners somehow or the other implicated and convicted by whatever means possible. A court of law cannot be silent spectator to such atrocious acts which virtually amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

I am clearly of the opinion in view of the various decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court that the allegations propounded by O.P. No.2 are not only untrustworthy but are attempts with specificity to engage the petitioners into frivolous and vexatious litigation which clearly indicate that the petitioners were indulging in misusing the law courts in blatant abuse of the process of the court.

In the result, the impugned orders in both the cases are hereby quashed and both the applications are allowed.

(Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna.

Dated: The 1st day     of May, 2009.
Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s