IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40879 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3253 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
1. Pramod Kumar Prabhakar, Son of Ram Murti Ram
2. Ram Murti Rai @ Ram Murti Ram, Son of Late Mahesh Ram
3. Sabo Sarswati Devi, Wife of Ram Murti Ram
4. Ajay Kumar Prabhakar, Son of Ram Murti Ram
5. Jayanti Devi, Wife of Ajay Kumar Prabhakar
6. Sanjay Kumar Prabhakar, Son of Ram Murti Ram
7. Vandana Devi, Wife of Sanjay Kumar Prabhakar
All are resident of village – Godhar Basti, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.- Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, State – Jharkhand
…. …. Petitioner/s
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rinki Kumari, Wife of Pramod Kumar Prabhakar, D/o Sri Kranti Kumar,
Resident of Mohalla – Bajidpur, P.S. Barh Distt. – Patna Presently Residing
atMohalla – Jora Phatak, Surendra Gali, Janki Bhawan, P.O. + P.S. + Distt.
…. …. Opposite Party/s
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar No.1, Adv.
For the Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Akbar Ali, APP
For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel representing the complainant-opposite party no.2.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40879 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017 2
The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking
quashing of the order dated 28.08.2014 passed in Cr. Rev. No.398 of
2013 by learned Adhoc Additional District Sessions Judge-VI,
Patna, whereby he has dismissed the revision application and upheld
the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated
20.05.2013 in Complaint Case No.3253(C)/2012. The cognizance has
been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner no.1 is the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2.
The petitioner nos.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively, whereas the petitioner nos.4 and 5 are the Devar and his
wife respectively. The petitioner nos.6 and 7 are also Devar and his
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in
fact, due to matrimonial discord between the petitioner no.1 and the
complainant-opposite party no.2, the whole family has been falsely
implicated on the strength of vague and omnibus kind of allegation of
demand of dowry.
Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party
no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 wants to live with her
husband, who is petitioner no.1, but the petitioner no.1 is not fulfilling
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40879 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017 3
his matrimonial obligations and because of his negligent attitude
towards the complainant-opposite party no.2, she has been suffering
from mental agony. He further submits that so far as the family
members are concerned, the complainant-opposite party no.2 is not
willing to prosecute them and her grievance is with respect to the
conduct of her husband.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that so far as the husband (petitioner no.1) is concerned, he is
ready and willing to keep the complainant-opposite party no.2 with
him at his matrimonial home. The husband is ready to meet the
complainant-opposite party no.2 and bring her to matrimonial home.
He further submits that the petitioner no.1 shall visit the complainant-
opposite party no.2 and bring her to his house within a period of four
weeks from today.
In view of the above developments and taking note of
the submissions advanced on behalf of the complainant-opposite party
no.2 that she has no grievance with respect to the other family
members and is not willing to prosecute them, let the order taking
cognizance and issuance of summons, as against the petitioner nos.2
to 7, be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed.
So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, his prayer is rejected,
he will first take his wife to his matrimonial home and thereafter he will have
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40879 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017 4
liberty to apply afresh either in the court below or before this Court,
as the case may be, for an appropriate relief.
The application is allowed to the extent indicated
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Uploading Date 07.09.2017