Saukhi Sahni & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 6 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23318 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -900 Year- 2008 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- MUZAFFARPUR

1. Saukhi Sahni Son of late Jangbahadur Sahni

2. Shail Kumari Devi Wife of Saukhi Sahni

3. Suresh Sahni Son of Saukhi Sahni

4. Neela Devi Wife of Suresh Sahni

5. Umesh Sahni Son of Saukhi Sahni

6. Jaimala Devi Wife of Umesh Sahni

7. Mukesh Kumar Son of Saukhi Sahni

8. Mithilesh Sahni Son of Saukhi Sahni all are resident of village- Kaila
Jalalpur, P.S.- Garoal, O.P.- Dilahpur Vasama, District- Vaishali.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Inar Devi daughter of late Gonaur Sahni resident of village- Taraora
Gopalpur, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur
…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Bela Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Amitesh Kumar, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 06-09-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 as also

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order

dated 20.09.2008, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur in Tr. No. 998/14, arising out of

Complaint Case No. 900/2008, by which learned Sub-
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017

2

Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons against these

petitioners.

3. Earlier, when the matter was taken up, considering

the nature of allegation in the complaint petition this Court

vide order dated 16.08.2017 adjourned the matter at the

instance of learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 to

seek instructions. Later on, vide order dated 23.08.2017, the

matter was adjourned for one week to file a supplementary

affidavit stating as to whether or not the petitioners and the

husband of the complainant have surrendered in the present

case.

4. Today, when the matter is called out, learned

counsel representing the petitioners submits that although

an affidavit could not be filed because his client did not reach

in time but he has got instruction that these petitioners and

the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2 have earlier

surrendered and are on bail. He submits that the matter may

be considered taking his statement as an officer of this Court

as he has also got this fact confirmed from the learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017

3

Advocate attending this case in court below.

5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has no

objection on this.

6. In these circumstances, instead of keeping the

matter pending again, this Court is disposing of the present

application.

7. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law,

brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law who are seeking quashing

of the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons as

stated above.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a

bare perusal of the complaint petition would show that the

marriage between the Opposite Party No. 2 and accused no.

1 (non-petitioner) was solemnized in the year 2000, and out

of the said wedlock, two sons were also born. According to

learned counsel for the petitioners, the present case has

been filed in the year 2008 alleging that for not meeting the

demand of motorcycle in dowry the accused persons were

harassing the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 in several

ways. There is no specific allegation, so far as these

petitioners are concerned, no role has been assigned to them
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017

4

showing commission of any act causing torture or

harassment to complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.

Submission is that they have been implicated in the present

case only because they happened to be closely related with

the husband. It is further submitted that these petitioners

are separate in mess and business and the filing of the

complaint after eight years from the date of marriage itself

suggests that the allegation of demand of dowry in a vague

and general manner has been made just to implicate the full

family.

9. Learned counsel representing the complainant

/Opposite Party No. 2 has fairly submitted before this Court

that his client is aggrieved by the harassment meted out to

her by the husband. So far as the present petitioners are

concerned, he has not got much grievance and in fact the

only apprehension which the learned counsel expressed is

that quashing of the order taking cognizance and issuance of

summons against the present petitioners should not affect

the case against the husband.

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

accepts the factual position that the complaint petition does
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017

5

not specify any role of the petitioners in the alleged act of

harassment.

11. This Court has considered the submissions made at

the bar and perused the records. A perusal of the complaint

petition makes it clear that there are only vague allegations

in the complaint petition against these petitioners. and no

prima facie case is made out on a reading of the same.

12. This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order

dated 20.09.2008, in so far as it relates to the present

petitioners only. It is made clear that the observations of this

Court hereinabove, would not effect the merit of the case

against the husband of the complainant/Opposite Party No.

2 and the order shall not be construed any other way to the

benefit of the non-petitioner/accused.

13. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.09.2017
Transmission Date 07.09.2017

Leave a Comment

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