IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50747 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1824 Year- 2013 Thana -SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District-
SITAMARHI

Rakesh Tiwary Son of Lalan Tiwary Resident of Quarter No. CD- 735, Sector-2,
H. E. C. Colony, Police Station – Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Neha Kumari, Daughter of Umesh Tiwary, Wife of Vijai Kumar Pandey @Vijai
Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Court Bazar, Ward No. 16, Police Station and District

– Sitamarhi (Bihar)
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh and
Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocates.

For the State: Mr. G.S. Gupta, A.P.P.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 13-10-2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel representing the complainant – opposite party no. 2 as also

learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dared

14.03.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1824/2013 (Trial No.

3381/2014) by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Sitamarhi by which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has

taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498A IPC read with
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50747 of 2014 dt.13-10-2017

2/4

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits

that this petitioner is Bahnoi (husband of the younger sister of the

husband of the complainant – opposite party no. 2). According to the

learned counsel, a bare perusal of the complaint petition giving rise to

Complaint Case No. 1824/2013 would show that so far as the present

petitioner is concerned there is no specific allegation of committing

any act of cruelty or torture against the complainant – opposite party

no. 2. The whole allegation is about participation of this petitioner at

the time of negotiation of the marriage where it is alleged that this

petitioner had accompanied Vijay Kumar Pandey (husband) on

25.12.2011 to the house of the complainant for purpose of meeting her

in connection with marriage. Learned counsel submits that in the

complaint petition itself it is stated that for purpose of expenses in the

marriage the father of the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.

4,00,000/- in the A/C of this petitioner. Submission is that once

marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2012 thereafter there is no

allegation of commission of any act or omission by this petitioner

which may constitute an offence either under Section 498A or Section

3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The allegation in the latter part of the complaint, which

deals with the post-marriage demand of dowry and torture meted out
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50747 of 2014 dt.13-10-2017

3/4

to the complainant, specifically talks about the act of the husband of

the complainant. It is the submission of the learned counsel

representing the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated in

the present case only because of his close relationship with the

husband of the complainant and for his participation in the negotiation

at the time of marriage.

5. Learned counsel representing the complainant –

opposite party no. 2 accepts the factual position as appearing from the

complaint petition which have been noted here-in-above. It is in fact

crystal clear from the complaint itself that there was no demand of

dowry as such by this petitioner and, according to the case of the

complainant itself, the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was deposited

towards expenses in marriage which will not attract the provisions of

Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act.

6. Since there is no allegation at all of committing any act

or omission which may constitute an offence under Section 498A

I.P.C., in the opinion of this Court, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence under Section

498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act did not

apply himself correctly in issuing summons to this petitioner.

7. The impugned order issuing summons to the present

petitioner is, therefore, fit to be quashed and is, accordingly, hereby
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50747 of 2014 dt.13-10-2017

4/4

quashed in respect of this petitioner.

6. The application is allowed to the extent indicated here-

in-above.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Dilip, AR

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.10.2017
Transmission 13.10.2017
Date