IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.31440 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1607 Year- 2012 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
VAISHALI(HAJIPUR)
1. Damodar Rai s/o Late Brahmdeo Rai.
2. Mosmat Sakuntala Devi w/o Late Brahmdeo Rai.
3. Rina Devi w/o Damodar Rai.
All residents of village – Rahar Diyara, P.S. Sonepur, Distt. – Saran at Chhapra
…. …. Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Meena Devi w/o Upendra Rai presently residing at village and post – Hilalpur,
P.S. Industrial area, Distt. – Vaishali. …. …. Opposite Parties.
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.2 : None.
For the State : Mr. T.P. Mandal, A.P.P.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA
JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-07-2017
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred against the order dated 16.11.2012, passed by
the learned S.D.J.M., Hajipur (Vaishali) in Complaint Case No.C1-
1607/2012, whereby finding prima facie case under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
four named accused persons including the petitioners the learned Magistrate
has ordered to issue summon against them.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that petitioner no.1-Damodar Rai happens to be the elder brother-in-law
(Bhaisur), petitioner no.2-Mosmat Sakuntala Devi, mother-in-law and
petitioner no.3-Rina Devi sister-in-law (Gotani) of the complainant. They are
living separately and have no concern with the affairs of the complainant and
her husband. The allegations levelled against them are not specific rather
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31440 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017
2/3
general and omnibus in nature. No prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners.
In spite of power filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, no
one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.
On perusal of the records, it appears that the complainant
Mina Devi filed a complaint petition against the petitioners and other accused
persons with the allegation in succinct that the marriage of the complainant
was solemnized with accused Upendra Rai. After marriage, she went to her
marital house and lived there happily for one month but, thereafter, all the
accused persons named in the complaint petition in connivance of her
husband started demanding colour television and a motorcycle and subjected
her to torture for not coughing up the said demand. They drove her out of the
marital house thrashing her and snatching her belongings.
During the course of enquiry, the complainant examined
herself on solemn affirmation and one witness in buttress of her case. After
perusing the complaint petition and material on record, the learned
Magistrate, finding prima facie case under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, ordered to summon against
the four accused persons including the petitioners.
On perusal of the case records, it appears that petitioner
no.2-Mosmat Sakuntala Devi happens to be the mother-in-law of the
complainant. There is nothing on the record to indicate that she has been
falsely and with ulterior motive implicated in the case. Role of the mother-in-
law in demanding dowry and subjecting the victim to torture for the said
demand cannot be ruled out. The complainant in her solemn affirmation and
her witness has supported the allegation of demanding dowry and subjecting
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31440 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017
3/3
the complainant to torture over the said demand against the petitioner no.2-
Mosmat Sakuntala Devi. Hence, in my considered opinion, prima facie case
against the petitioner no.2-Mosmat Sakuntala Devi is made out under the
aforesaid sections. So far as petitioner no.1-Damodar Rai also happens to be
the elder brother-in-law (Bhaisur) and petitioner no.3-Rina Devi sister-in-law
(Gotani) of the complainant is concerned, the allegations levelled against
them are not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is nothing
on record to indicate as to what motivated the aforesaid petitioners to make
the aforesaid demand of colour television and motorcycle from the
complainant as dowry as the same would be used by the husband of the
complainant and are of no use of the said petitioners. Hence, no prima facie
case is made out against the said petitioners i.e. petitioner no.1 and petitioner
no.3, and continuance of the proceeding against them is sheer abuse of the
process of the Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 passed
by the learned S.D.J.M., Hajipur, Vaishali in Complaint Case No.C1-
1607/2012 against the petitioner no.1-Damodar Rai and petitioner no.3-Rina
Devi is quashed. This application is partly allowed.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.)
Trivedi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.07.2017
Transmission 28.07.2017
Date