Kunal Kumar Suman @ Kunal Suman vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3400 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3210 of 2021
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2020 Thana- BARIYARPUR District- Munger
     ======================================================

Kunal Kumar Suman @ Kunal Suman, aged about 30 years, (Male), S/o Sri Sumit Pd. Sah @ Suman Pd., Resident of Village - Ghorghat, P.S. - Bariarpur, Dist. - Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kalpana Nishad, D/o Shyamdeo Nishad, aged about 36 years, Occupasion -

Business, Resident at Room No. 87, Rubi House, Old C.S.T. Road, Kalina Santacruz (E) Mumbai - 29, Maharastra at present R/o Ghorghat, P.O. - Ghorghat, P.S. - Bariarpur, District - Munger.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP\ For the State : Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 16-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned counsel for

the petitioner; Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State and Ms. Akanksha Malviya, learned counsel for the

informant-opposite party no. 2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Bariarpur PS Case No. 41 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020, instituted

under Sections 498A and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner and his Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2021 dt.16-07-2021

relatives/family members, in the case filed by the petitioner's

wife-opposite party no. 2, is of torture and also taking away of

her cash and jewellery and turning her out of the matrimonial

home and also of threat to get the petitioner married somewhere

else.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

opposite party no. 2 was a widow and had a son from the first

marriage and they developed relationship at Mumbai living in

the same neighbourhood. It was submitted that the opposite

party no. 2, had filed a complaint at Mumbai also but the same

was compromised and they married under the Special Marriages

Act, but though the petitioner has been ever ready to accept the

opposite party no. 2 as his wife, she has repeatedly not

cooperated and in fact had tried to kill the petitioner for which

he has filed Complaint Case No. 1146 of 2019, before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in which cognizance

has been taken and process also issued against the informant and

others on 02.03.2020 and after coming to know of the same, the

present case has been filed on 14.05.2020. Learned counsel

submitted that the opposite party no. 2 in the present case had

also filed a compromise petition on 19.12.2020, but on the next

date in the case before the Court below, she has prayed that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2021 dt.16-07-2021

said compromise be not acted upon and she has resiled from the

same. It was submitted that she is living in the house of the

petitioner and as the petitioner is presently jobless, being

dependent on the pension of the father of the petitioner and even

the parents of the petitioner are old and suffering from various

ailments, but still the opposite party no. 2 is creating problems.

6. On 02.06.2021, the Court had granted interim

protection to the petitioner and also given time to learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to seek

instructions. Thereafter, on 25.06.2021, learned counsel for the

petitioner had taken a categorical stand that he was ready to

keep the opposite party no. 2 and the child with him in his

parents' house. The Court had also noted his stand that the

opposite party no. 2 should also undertake that she would live

properly with him and not create issues and problems as she was

doing in the past, both with him as well as his parents. Thus,

having regard to the common stand taken by the parties that

both are ready to live with each other, the Court had asked them

to file their individual affidavit with regard to their desire to live

together and that they would not create any unnecessary issues

or problems for each other and further that the petitioner shall

keep the opposite party no. 2 and her child with him with full Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2021 dt.16-07-2021

dignity, honour and security.

7. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, all

sorts of allegations have been made against the opposite party

no. 2 that she has various problems and that she had beaten the

mother and father of the petitioner as also the petitioner due to

which he has filed Complaint Case No. 470 of 2021 before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger on 26.06.2021 and

also Divorce Case No. 111 of 2021 under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Munger.

8. Learned APP submitted that as per the FIR, offence

is made out against the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2

submitted that the allegation of cruelty is apparent from what

has been stated in the FIR. It was submitted that right from the

beginning, the petitioner was trying to have a good time with the

informant at Mumbai and even used to live with her in her

house and had established physical relationship on the pretext

that he would be marrying her but when he did not do so, she

was forced to file a case and thereafter it was compromised and

the parties married but the petitioner and his family members

right from the beginning, wanted the relationship to end for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2021 dt.16-07-2021

which the petitioner left his job and came back to live in the

village, though there was no occasion for him to do so, but only

to create a situation that the informant herself would leave him

so that he would be free to marry another girl. Learned counsel

submitted that the allegation of having tortured the petitioner

and his parents in the matrimonial home is totally false as it

cannot be expected that the informant, who is not a native of the

place, would come and live in the house of the petitioner and

would be so bold to commit such atrocities and most

importantly, it also cannot be believed that the parents would not

register a case and filing of the complaint itself shows that it is a

false allegation. Further, it was submitted that it also cannot be

believed that one lady would be so physically competent to

assault and cause bodily injury, including biting, of three

persons alone without any support. Even otherwise, it was

submitted that from the photograph it is absolutely clear that

only some marks have been shown but that also cannot prove

any injury, rather only some marking made over some parts to

show that there is some injury and the same also ex facie

appears to be superfluous, only to create a record. It was

submitted that the belligerence of the petitioner would be clear

from the fact that he did not wait for the matter to be heard by Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2021 dt.16-07-2021

this Court and during the pendency, especially after getting

interim protection, he has filed a divorce case when before the

Court in the present proceeding, he was taking a stand that he

was ready to keep the informant with him with full dignity,

honour and security. It was submitted that the informant, who

has a son from previous marriage, was not living in the house of

the petitioner for long and still all sorts of allegations have been

made against her, which shows that totally imaginary records

have been created to show her in a bad light. It was further

submitted that the allegations made by the informant in the FIR

would clearly show that the same are very natural and real and

there is no exaggeration for the reason that a husband leaving

the wife and not keeping her with him itself is the biggest

cruelty and definitely would come within the scope and ambit of

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted

that the mala fide on the part of the petitioner would be clear

that he has tried to abuse the indulgence given by the Court and

had tried to take undue advantage of giving an impression

before the Court that he was ready to accept the informant as his

wife and keep her with him with full dignity, honour and

security, but having the real intention to somehow divorce her

and after having got interim protection, he has shown his true Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2021 dt.16-07-2021

colours.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP and

learned counsel for the informant.

11. In the tentative view of the Court, there appears to

be sufficient ground to indicate that the allegations made in the

FIR cannot be said to be incorrect or false. Moreover, the Court

finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the

informant that once the petitioner had taken a stand before the

Court that he was ready to keep the informant with him with full

dignity, honour and security, due to which the Court was

indulgent and gave him interim protection, he has, by hurriedly

filing a suit for divorce, without even waiting for the present

case to be taken up and raising his grievance before this Court,

has taken precipitative action, more so, as his stand of keeping

the informant with full dignity, honour and security has been

totally belied by filing a Divorce Case straightaway. The Court

would, thus, observe that the conduct of the petitioner in the

present proceeding lacks bona fides.

12. In the aforesaid background, taking an overall

view, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2021 dt.16-07-2021

petitioner.

13. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

14. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under

order dated 02.06.2021 stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T