IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22116 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2009 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
1. Rakesh Kumar @ Roshan Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Son of Deochandra Ram
2. Deochandra Ram Son of Late Sukhdeo Ram
3. Bijendra Ram S/o – Panchu Ram
4. Bilash Ram Son of Late Sukhdeo Ram
5. Gita Devi W/o – Deochandra Ram
6. Jhalari Devi Wife of Late Dashrath Ram
7. Rekha Devi Daughter of Deochandra Ram All Resident of Village – Ajgewa,
Police Station – Sour Bazar, District – Saharsa.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Veena Devi wife of Rakesh Kumar @ Roshan Kumar Daughter of Sahdeo
Ram, Resident of Village-Ajgewa, Police Station- Sour Bazar, District-
Saharsa at present address Village and Post Office Rahta Funhan, Police
Station- Uda Kishunganj, District- Madhepura.
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-01-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following
relief:
“That this quashing application is
directed against the impugned roder dated
07/09/2009 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura passed in
connection with Complaint Case No. 89 C/2009,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22116 of 2014 dt.02-01-2019
2/4whereby and where under the Learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura took
cognizance of the offences under section 498(A),
323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and directed to issue
summons against the petitioners.”
3. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the opposite
party no. 2 (complainant) and others are family members/relatives
of the petitioner no. 1. During the pendency of the application, the
petitioner no. 2, who is father of the petitioner no. 1 has died.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is of demand of
dowry and torture and also assault.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
from the plain reading of the complaint, it would be obvious that
the allegations are cosmetic and further, with regard to the
complainant being poisoned at the house of the petitioner no. 1, it
is improbable as there is no attached prescription to show that
there was any poisoning. Learned counsel further referred to the
Informatory Petition filed by the petitioner no. 1 before the police
on 19.01.2018, alleging threatening by the relatives of the
complainant.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the petitioners were also
responsible in the harassment and demand of dowry and with
regard to petitioner no. 1, despite Court order, when the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22116 of 2014 dt.02-01-2019
3/4
complainant was accompanying him to the matrimonial home, she
was left at night at Mansi railway station and petitioner no. 1 had
run away and she had to call her brother to go home of which, the
Court had taken judicial notice and also directed payment of Rs.
25,000/- by the petitioner no. 1 to the opposite party no. 2.
However, on a direct query of the Court as to what was the
specific role of the other petitioners with regard to any dispute
which may occur between the husband and the wife, as ultimately
it is the husband who is responsible for the well being and general
welfare of the wife i.e., opposite party no. 2, learned counsel was
not in a position to show any specific or direct allegation against
the other petitioners.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
finds that the petitioner no. 1, being the husband, is answerable
and responsible for the general well being of the complainant, who
is the wife and as far as the allegations are concerned, the same
cannot be said to be frivolous at their face value and the taking of
cognizance against him cannot be said to be bad in law requiring
any interference. Accordingly, the application on his behalf stands
dismissed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22116 of 2014 dt.02-01-2019
4/4
8. However, as far as petitioners no. 3 to 7 are
concerned, the Court finds that their involvement is only to the
extent of they being relatives to the petitioner no. 1 as against
them, there is no specific allegation which would warrant them to
undergo the rigors of trial and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the Court.
9. Accordingly, the application on behalf of petitioners
no. 3 to 7 is allowed.
10. The order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura taking cognizance
under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case No. 89C of 2009, as far
as it relates to them, stands quashed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
