IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.35325 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2011 Thana -VIJAYPUR District- GOPALGANJ
Dilip Yadav son of Ramadhar Yadav Resident of Village- Kutiya, P.S.- Vijaipur,
District- Gopalganj
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manju Devi, wife of Dilip Yadav daughter of Keshav Yadav Resident of
Village- Kutiya, P.S.- Vijaipur, District- Gopalganj. At present resident of
Village- Tatayar Khurd, P.S.- Khampur, District- Deoriya (U.P.)
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Fahimuddin, APP.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA
JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 31-07-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 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
21.02.2012 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Gopalganj in Trial No. 3656 of 2014 arising out of Vijaipur P.S.
Case No. 55 of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 498A and 494/34 of
the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused
persons.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35325 of 2014 dt.31-07-2017
2/4
that in the entire complaint petition, there is no allegation of demand
of dowry against the petitioner. Hence, offence under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that regarding the same demand of
dowry, another case has been filed by the opposite party no.2 at
Deoria which is still pending. Hence, this case is not maintainable on
this score alone.
4. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel
for opposite party no.2 that the petitioner happens to be the husband
of the opposite party no.2 and there is specific allegation of demand
of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- for doing business by him and also
subjecting the opposite party no.2 to various sorts of torture over the
said demand and driving her out of her marital house snatching her
belongings and thrashing her. Hence, prima facie case is made out
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no bar in
filing another complaint petition under Section 498A and other allied
sections of the Indian Penal Code for the offence committed on
different occasions. Moreover, quashing petition filed by the father-
in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2
has been dismissed by this Court.
5. From perusal of the record, it appears that Vijaipur
P.S. Case No. 55 of 2011 has been instituted under Sections 498A,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35325 of 2014 dt.31-07-2017
3/4
323 and 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the complaint petition filed by
Opposite party No.2, namely, Manju Devi, with allegation in
succinct that her marriage was performed with the petitioner on
30.05.2006 and after that she went to her marital house and lived
there happily for two months. Thereafter, the petitioner started
demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- for doing business and her in-laws also
endorsed the aforesaid demand. But on failure to cough up the
demand, they subjected her to various sorts of torture and drove her
out of her marital house. However, they took her back following the
Panchayati, but again expelled her from her marital house thrashing
her and snatching her belongings. The petitioner has also performed
second marriage at Delhi.
6. On perusing the chargesheet and the case diary and
finding prima facie case under Sections 323, 498A and 494/34 of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused persons,
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against the
petitioners and others vide impugned order.
7. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears
that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the opposite party
no.2 and there is specific allegation against the petitioner regarding
demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for doing business and subjecting her to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35325 of 2014 dt.31-07-2017
4/4
various sorts of torture and performing second marriage with some
other lady and driving her out of her marital house snatching her
belongings in connivance of his family members. Thus, prima facie
case appears to be made out against the petitioner and others under
aforesaid sections. Though from perusal of the Annexure-2, it
appears that opposite party no.2 has filed another case under Section
498A and allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and others besides
the case under hand with the allegation, inter alia, of demand of Rs.
2,00,000/- and marshal vehicle in dowry at Deoria but in my
considered opinion, filing of another complaint petition under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is no bar when the
complainant is subjected to cruelty and torture over the dowry
demand on different occasions.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not
find any illegality in the impugned order and any merit and substance
in the present petition. Accordingly, this quashing petition is
dismissed.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)
Mishra/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 04.08.2017
Transmission 04.08.2017
Date