IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-942 Year-2008 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas

Amita Srivastava @ Smt. Anita Srivastava wife of Krishan Murari Lal
srivastava, Resident of Missir Bazar, Behind the Rai Shabka, Hotel Missir
Bazar, Gazipur, Police Station – Kotwali, Gazipur, District Gazipur(U.P)

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priyanka Srivastava daughter of Shchindra Nath Srivastava Mohalla-
Awadhesh Aabha Niwas, Behind CMC Kaliasthan, Sasaram, District Rohtas.

… … Opposite Party/s

with
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8053 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-942 Year-2008 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-

Rohtas

Bipin Bihari Lal son of Late Ujagir Prasad resident of Missir Bazar, behind
the Rai Shabka Hotel, Missir Bazar, Gazipur, Police Station Kotwali, Gazipur,
District Gazipur (U.P.).

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Priyanka Srivastava daughter of Sachindra Nath Srivastava mohalla
Awadhesh Aabha Niwas, behind CMC Kaliasthan, Sasaram, District Rohtas.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

(In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3372 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar with
Mrs. Kanak Verma, Advocates

For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

For the Complainant : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha with
Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocates

(In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8053 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar with
Mrs. Kanak Verma, Advocates

For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

For the Complainant : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha with
Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocates
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3372 of 2016 dt.07-01-2019
2/7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 07-01-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned

A.P.Ps. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.

2. The petitioners and opposite party no. 2 are also present.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following

relief:

“That this applications being filed for invoking the
inherent power of this Hon’ble High Court for
quashing the order dated 22.10.2008 in complaint
case No. 942 of 2008 passed by the Learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in
Complain Case No. 942 of 2008 by which the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is
pleased to take cognizance for the offences under
Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and ¾
D.P. Act against the petitioner along with others.”

3. The petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 8053 of 2016 is

the husband of the opposite party no. 2 whereas the petitioner

of Cr. Misc. No. 3372 of 2016 is the wife of the elder brother

of the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 8053 of 2016.

4. The allegations against them and three other

members of their family is of torture and demand of dowry and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3372 of 2016 dt.07-01-2019
3/7

specifically with regard to the present petitioners that they had

illicit relationship.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

it is the opposite party no. 2, who had deserted her husband

and only for a brief period, she resided with the husband at

Mumbai but when the husband took transfer to his native

place, i.e., Gazipur in Uttar Pradesh, she has not been living

with him. Learned counsel submitted that after such

allegations were levelled, the husband got an official residence

allotted to him but even then the opposite party no. 2 did not

reside in the residence and, thus, he has tried his best for her to

come back. Learned counsel submitted that in Maintenance

Case No. 25 of 2009 filed by the opposite party no. 2 against

the husband, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas

at Sasaram, the court had recorded that the opposite party no. 2

during reconciliation had refused to go with her husband. It

was submitted that in the maintenance case, the husband is

paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2.

Learned counsel submitted that one of the petitioners is also a

lady. Learned counsel submitted that the mother of opposite

party no. 2 had filed a complaint before the State Commission

for Women, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in which the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3372 of 2016 dt.07-01-2019
4/7

had given a written reply that she had no complain against her

family members.

6. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the

opposite party no. 2 submitted that the entire family of her

husband, except for the mother-in-law, used to torture her with

regard to dowry and also physically assaulted her. It was

submitted that soon after marriage the opposite party no. 2

could understand the illicit relationship between the two

petitioners and because of her objection, torture started.

Learned counsel further submitted that there is a documented

long and uninterrupted sequence of torture right from the very

beginning which would be clear from the fact that after

sometime, when the husband was transferred to Kandla in

Gujarat, things were also not very good but because the

husband was not in the company of the other petitioner, she

was living with him. It was submitted that the husband,

thereafter managed to get his transfer to Gazipur, i.e. his home

city, and even left for joining without taking the petitioner and

her three years old son and she had to write to the local

Superintendent of Police to permit her to go home after

locking the house. It was submitted that even otherwise she

had filed a petition before the local police that if anything
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3372 of 2016 dt.07-01-2019
5/7

untoward happened to her or her son, the accused should be

held responsible. Learned counsel submitted that the husband

even when he went to Mumbai tortured her and every time

there was demand for money as a pre-condition for taking her

back. Learned counsel submitted that in the case filed by the

opposite party no. 2 against the accused with regard to return

of stridhan as well as Rs. 6,00,000/- taken by way of Rs.

5,75,000/- through cheque and Rs. 25,000/- in cash, the

Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram had recorded in the year

2012 that the opposite party no. 2 was ready to go to the

matrimonial home but the husband had flatly refused to take

her. Learned counsel submitted that as far as the stand taken

before the State Commission for Women, Uttar Pradesh, the

same was only with the intention of not making matters worse

and leaving scope of reconciliation and further that the same is

only cryptic. It was submitted that the same, thus, cannot be

said to be a true reflection of the real torture which the

opposite party no. 2 has been made to suffer at the hands of the

petitioners and their other family members. Learned counsel

submitted that even from Kandla, the opposite party no. 2 had

written letters to her brother which have also been produced

before the court below, which goes to show that regularly there
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3372 of 2016 dt.07-01-2019
6/7

was demand of dowry and torture. Learned counsel for the

opposite party no. 2 further drew the attention of the Court to

specific paragraphs in the complaint where at paragraphs no. 6,

9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 the sequence of chain of events with

regard to torture and demand of dowry have been mentioned

and it has also been specifically stated that there was illicit

relationship between the petitioners and that she was made to

suffer both physically and mentally by the accused.

7. At this stage, when the Court put a direct query to

both learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party

no. 2, in the presence of the parties, learned counsel for the

petitioners took a categorical stand that the opposite party no.

2 would not be taken back in the matrimonial home. However,

learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite

party no. 2 submitted that she was ready to go and live with

the husband. On a further query as to how and why she now

wants to go and live with the husband when regularly and

continuously he used to harass and torture her, she submitted

that from the year 2016 the petitioner is no more living in the

Gazipur and presently posted in Kolkata and further, taking

into account the future and career of the son, who is now 14

years old, she has taken a conscious decision to go and live in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3372 of 2016 dt.07-01-2019
7/7

the matrimonial home along with the husband and moreover,

now the son being 14 years of age, she is confident that he

shall act as her protector.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court does not find any merit in the present application. From

the materials on record before this Court and the court below,

it is apparent that the same are sufficient for the Court to take

cognizance of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code warranting a full-fledged trial. Thus, at present, the order

taking cognizance being under challenge, in the considered

opinion of the Court, does not require to be interfered with.

9. Accordingly, the applications stand dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
U
T