PATNA, India, July 30 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 14:
Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for complainant/O.P. No.2.
2. The present application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC') for quashing of the cognizance order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna City, in connection with C.A. 83 of 2023 dated 19.01.2023, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. That the prosecution case is based upon a written complaint filed by the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant, namely, Dilkash Ghazala, alleging therein that the marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. No. 2 was finalized in October 2022 and the expenses incurred in the preparation was around Rs. 11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs only). The date of marriage was fixed for 24.12.2022 and the place of marriage was decided to be Hotel Windsor and the expense incurred for booking the hotel came upto Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner was posted in the Central Bank of India at Ahmadabad and he demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to purchase a flat at Ahmedabad on the pretext that the married couple would stay in the said flat after marriage. The complainant further alleged that the accused persons persuaded that the name of the petitioner in the wedding card to be printed as Syed Sarfaraz and not Seemab Hussain, which was objected by the O.P. No. 2 but, they agreed to the same thinking it to be a trivial matter. It is further alleged that on the date of marriage i.e. on 24.12.2022 at Hotel Windsor at the fixed time at 7:00 pm, only 5 persons arrived as 'baarati' which was astonishing for all the people present for the wedding, when it was informed that a total of 25 persons would be there as baarat. It is further alleged that when the Maulana performed the Nikkah, the petitioner accepted the marriage but, when the Maulana asked the petitioner and his father (accused No.2) to sign on the Nikkahnama, they refused and were adamant that the O.P. No. 2/complainant be sent to the petitioner and demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- before signing Nikkahnama. The family of the O.P. No. 2 refused the demands of the petitioners, as the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 were not married, since there was no sign on the Nikkahnama. The petitioner along with other accused persons have fraudulently extracted Rs. 5,00,000/- cash and the total expenses incurred in the marriage amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- from the family of O.P. No.-2. The petitioner alongwith co-accused persons have conspired together to cheat the O.P. No. 2 and have insulted them publicly in front of family and their friends. It is alleged that expenses have been incurred by the father of O.P. No. 2, who has travelled from Saudi Arabia and by her younger brother also, who travelled from Chennai. It is further alleged that petitioner had earlier married to a woman named Nafisa and has two children from her, who he has left in her maternal home. It is further alleged that the accused persons have conspired to deceive O.P. No.2 on the pretext of marriage to extract Rs. 11,00,000/- and have publicly insulted them in front of their relatives and friends.
4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate vide order dated 15.05.2023 took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC against the petitioner and other accused persons.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM1ODY0MCMyMDI0IzEjTg==-cHjOMYXnmY8=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
