Shanti Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 26 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27406 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -133 Year- 2012 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PURNIA

1. Shanti Devi Wife of Dinesh Rai

2. Sanjita Devi Daughter of Dinesh Rai

3. Dinesh Rai Son of Late Gaina Rai Resident of Village – Kanhaila Patol, P.S. –
Barsoi (O.P. Sudhani), District – Katihar
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rajni Devi Daughter of Bejoy Rai Resident of Village – Jamira, P.S. – Baisi,
District – Purnea
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA
JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-07-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned APP for the

State.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated

10.05.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Purnea in Complaint Case No. 133 of 2012 whereby the learned

Judicial Magistrate ordered to issue summon against the petitioners

finding prima facie case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against them.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27406 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017

2/4

that the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 happen to be the mother-in-law,

sister-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant. There

is no specific allegation of making of dowry demand and subjecting

the complainant to torture and cruelty for the said demand against the

petitioners. Further allegation levelled against the petitioners is

general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners have no concern with

the affairs of the complainant and her husband. Petitioner no.3,

namely, Dinesh Rai has filed a complaint case no. 3349 of 2011

under Sections 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the

complainant and her parents much earlier to this complaint case. The

complainant has filed this false and frivolous case with ulterior

motive to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case under hand due

to filing of the aforesaid complaint case against her and no prima

facie case is made out against the petitioners in the present case.

4. Learned APP vehemently opposed the aforesaid

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners submitting that

the complainant in her solemn affirmation and the witnesses

examined during the course of enquiry have supported the

prosecution case. Hence, prima facie case is made out against the

petitioners as well. It is further submitted that the petitioners have

failed to point out any illegality and impropriety in the impugned

order warranting quashing of the impugned order.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27406 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017

3/4

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears

that the complaint petition was filed by the complainant against her

in-laws including her husband with the allegation in succinct that her

marriage was performed with the accused no.1 Kamal Rai and after

that she went to her marital house. She was blessed with a female

child out of the said wedlock. The accused persons made demand of

a cow and she goat as dowry which was fulfilled by her father. The

accused persons again started demanding a motorcycle and on failure

to cough up the demand, they subjected the complainant to torture

and left her at her maternal house and refused to take her back till the

non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand.

7. From perusal of the records, it appears that in

buttress of her case, the complainant has examined herself on solemn

affirmation and her three witnesses who have supported the

complaint case. After perusing the complaint petition, solemn

affirmation of the complainant and deposition of the witnesses, the

learned Judicial Magistrate finding prima facie case under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act took cognizance of the offence against the accused

persons including the petitioners.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27406 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017

4/4

8. From perusal of the record, it further appears that the

case under hand is counterblast of the complaint case filed by the

petitioner no.3 against the complainant and her parents much earlier.

Moreover, the allegations levelled against the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and

3 who happen to be mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law

respectively of the complainant are not specific rather omnibus and

nothing has been cited by the complainant as to what motivated the

petitioners to make dowry demand from the complainant.

9. Thus, I do not find any prima facie case against the

petitioners and the order taking cognizance against these petitioners

is an abuse of process of the court. Accordingly, this quashing

petition is allowed and the order taking cognizance against these

petitioners is quashed.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)

Mishra/-

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 27.07.2017
Transmission 27.07.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *