@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Sheema Ali Khan, J.@mdashHeard Counsel for the Petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. In this case, notices were issued to Opposite Party No. 2/the complainant, namely, Suchi Devi. Despite notices served on her, she did not appear to pursue this case. Finally, there was an order for substituted service even after substituted service were affected, Suchi Devi did not appear before this Court.
3. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that when the matter was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, notices were issued to Suchi Devi. The report which is annexed at Annexure-5 indicates that no person by the name of Suchi Devi, daughter of Ravindra Nath Pandey lived at Sohana Pati, Ward No. 14 of 23. It is further stated that several persons including the Mukhiya has stated that there is no person by the name of Suchi Devi living in the village. This submission has been made in order to indicate that the son-in-law of Petitioners 2 and 3 and brother-in-law of Petitioner No. 1 were witnesses in a case filed by the sister of Petitioner No. 1 against her husband. The husband in revenge has set up a fake person to make the claim that she is the wife of Petitioner No. 1. It is submitted in view of the aforesaid fact that the said Suchi Devi in fact cannot be traced, the case ought to be quashed.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, on perusal of the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant on S.A., it would appear that there is a vague allegation that the Petitioners 2 and 3 used to ill-treat the complainant. It is said that there was a demand of motorcycle by Petitioner No. 1 and on non-fulfillment of the said demand, the complainant was treated badly. As a result of which, the complainant left her matrimonial home. In the statement on S.A., she has changed the year of marriage from 2003 to 2002 and has not really supported the complaint case inasmuch as she said that she was ill-treated by her in-laws.
5. In the facts aforesaid, I find that the allegations as far as the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, are not at all justified and as such the order taking cognizance dated 28.01.2005 is quashed as far as Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.
6. This Court further directs that since the Petitioner has prima facie been able to create a doubt in the mind of the Court, that in fact the Opposite Party No. 2 Suchi Devi is a non-existent person, the Court below will verify this fact by holding an enquiry through the Circle Officer of the Block and also ensure that Suchi Devi should be personally present in this case. If the Court finds that in fact the Block Development Officer and the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station that no such person exists, then the Court will pass appropriate orders dismissing the complaint petition if Suchi Devi does not turn up to support the complaint case.
7. This application is partly allowed and is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
