IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.26275 of 2011

1. Rajnish Kumar Akhileshwar Kumar

2. Arvind Kumar Akhileshwar Kumar

3. Akhileshwar Kumar son of

4. Uma Devi W/O Akhileshwar Kumar

5. Reena Devi W/O Arvind Kumar
All R/o village- Berua, P.S.-Sanaiya, O.P. Jaintpur, Distt.-Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Petitioners
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Payal Devi D/O Bhupendra Kumar Katchi Pakki, P.S.- Sadar. Distt.-
Muzaffarpur.

…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 20-04-2017

This Criminal Miscellaneous application has been filed for

quashing the order dated 19.05.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 2886 of

2010, Tr. No. 2164 of 2011 by the learned S.D.J.M., East, Muzaffarpur

whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken

against the petitioners and further for quashing the entire criminal proceeding

in this connection.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for

the State.

3. As per the complaint petition, the petitioner no. 1 proposed

before the complainant for marriage to which the brother of the complainant

also accepted, thereafter, the petitioners no. 2 to 5 gave consent for marriage

of the petitioner no. 1 with the complainant but demanded Rs. 3 lakhs and one
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26275 of 2011 dt.20-04-2017 2

Hero Honda Motorcycle. However, the brother of the complainant proposed to

give Rs. 1 lakh for marriage expense and further to solemnize the marriage in

temple, then, on 02.03.2009 the marriage of the complainant was performed

in the temple with petitioner no. 1. After marriage when the complainant went

to her sasural, after some times the petitioners started demanding Rs. 2 lakhs

and Hero Honda Motorcycle as dowry and due to non-fulfillment they started

torturing and assaulting her and further she was pregnant which was aborted

and on 20.08.2010 all the petitioners snatched her all belongings and ousted

from the in-laws house and petitioner no. 1 wants to marry again with another

girl. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and she produced

Rita Devi inquiry witness no. 1 and Usha Singh inquiry witness no. 2. Both

have supported the allegation of complainant during inquiry. The learned

S.D.J.M. after considering the allegations as made out in the complaint

petition and further considering the statement of the complainant on S.A. and

the statements of inquiry witnesses passed the impugned order.

4. Submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.

1 has not married with O. P. No. 2. The inquiry witnesses are fake witness as

on the addresses given they cannot be located. In addition to complaint case,

the complainant also filed same complaint before the Superintendent of Police,

Muzaffarpur on 30.09.2010 which was sent by him before the Family Advice

Centre, Muzaffarpur and the Family Advice Centre made detail inquiry in this

connection and after hearing both sides finds no marriage between petitioner

no. 1 and the complainant has ever been solemnized and the complainant

wants to implicate the petitioners falsely by making a concocted story with a

2
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26275 of 2011 dt.20-04-2017 3

purpose to extract money from petitioner no. 1 and submitted a report about it

on 09.05.2011. The complainant also filed first information report vide

Minapur P.S. Case No. 118 of 2011 under Sections 406, 498A, 323 and 349

of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and she also wrote to D.I.G.

Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur in this connection. In that connection inquiry was

made by the Officer In-charge of Jaithpur Police Station and he also found that

no marriage was solemnized and submitted a report before the D.I.G., Tirhut

Range, Muzaffarpur. The complainant also made similar complaint before the

Women Help Line, Muzaffarpur and after hearing closed the complaint of O.

P. No. 2 on 01.06.2011. The member of Panchayat Samiti and Mukhiya of the

Gram Panchayat has also given certificate and affidavit that the complainant

was never married with petitioner no. 1. The complainant has made a

concocted story with false allegation against the petitioners with intention to

only implicate in such a false case and as such the impugned order is fit to be

set aside and quashed. The entire complaint case is vexatious and malicious

and proceeding in the complaint case will be abuse of the process of the court.

5. On the other hand, learned APP submits that all these

documents were not available before the learned S.D.J.M. when he was

passing the impugned order and all these documents can be adjudged at the

proper stage at the time of framing of charge and not at this stage. The

grievance and contentions of the petitioners can only be adjudged at the later

stage i.e. at the time of framing of charge and not at this stage. It is well settled

principle of law that at the time of taking cognizance the defence of the

accused persons cannot be looked into.

3

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26275 of 2011 dt.20-04-2017 4

6. Having considered the submissions urged at the bar, going

through the complaint petition, statement o complainant on S.A. and the

statements of inquiry witnesses it is manifest that the learned S.D.J.M. has

passed the impugned order rightly and there is no illegality, incorrectness or

impropriety in the said order. At this stage, the court is only required to see as

to whether, on the basis of materials collected during inquiry, prima facie case

is made out or not and here, the learned S.D.J.M. has rightly found that prima

facie offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners and accordingly,

passed the order to issue summons against them. The contentions of the

petitioners and the documents can be looked into at proper stage, at the time of

framing of charge, and not at this stage.

7. In the result, finding no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety

in the impugned order, the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, finding no

merit in this Criminal Miscellaneous application, the same is hereby

dismissed.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
avin/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 22.04.2017
Transmission 22.04.2017
Date

4