IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.23318 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -900 Year- 2008 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- MUZAFFARPUR
1. Saukhi Sahni Son of late Jangbahadur Sahni
2. Shail Kumari Devi Wife of Saukhi Sahni
3. Suresh Sahni Son of Saukhi Sahni
4. Neela Devi Wife of Suresh Sahni
5. Umesh Sahni Son of Saukhi Sahni
6. Jaimala Devi Wife of Umesh Sahni
7. Mukesh Kumar Son of Saukhi Sahni
8. Mithilesh Sahni Son of Saukhi Sahni all are resident of village- Kaila
Jalalpur, P.S.- Garoal, O.P.- Dilahpur Vasama, District- Vaishali.
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Inar Devi daughter of late Gonaur Sahni resident of village- Taraora
Gopalpur, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur
…. …. Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Bela Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Amitesh Kumar, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 06-09-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 as also
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order
dated 20.09.2008, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur in Tr. No. 998/14, arising out of
Complaint Case No. 900/2008, by which learned Sub-
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017
2
Divisional Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons against these
petitioners.
3. Earlier, when the matter was taken up, considering
the nature of allegation in the complaint petition this Court
vide order dated 16.08.2017 adjourned the matter at the
instance of learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 to
seek instructions. Later on, vide order dated 23.08.2017, the
matter was adjourned for one week to file a supplementary
affidavit stating as to whether or not the petitioners and the
husband of the complainant have surrendered in the present
case.
4. Today, when the matter is called out, learned
counsel representing the petitioners submits that although
an affidavit could not be filed because his client did not reach
in time but he has got instruction that these petitioners and
the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2 have earlier
surrendered and are on bail. He submits that the matter may
be considered taking his statement as an officer of this Court
as he has also got this fact confirmed from the learned
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017
3
Advocate attending this case in court below.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has no
objection on this.
6. In these circumstances, instead of keeping the
matter pending again, this Court is disposing of the present
application.
7. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law,
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law who are seeking quashing
of the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons as
stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a
bare perusal of the complaint petition would show that the
marriage between the Opposite Party No. 2 and accused no.
1 (non-petitioner) was solemnized in the year 2000, and out
of the said wedlock, two sons were also born. According to
learned counsel for the petitioners, the present case has
been filed in the year 2008 alleging that for not meeting the
demand of motorcycle in dowry the accused persons were
harassing the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 in several
ways. There is no specific allegation, so far as these
petitioners are concerned, no role has been assigned to them
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017
4
showing commission of any act causing torture or
harassment to complainant/Opposite Party No. 2.
Submission is that they have been implicated in the present
case only because they happened to be closely related with
the husband. It is further submitted that these petitioners
are separate in mess and business and the filing of the
complaint after eight years from the date of marriage itself
suggests that the allegation of demand of dowry in a vague
and general manner has been made just to implicate the full
family.
9. Learned counsel representing the complainant
/Opposite Party No. 2 has fairly submitted before this Court
that his client is aggrieved by the harassment meted out to
her by the husband. So far as the present petitioners are
concerned, he has not got much grievance and in fact the
only apprehension which the learned counsel expressed is
that quashing of the order taking cognizance and issuance of
summons against the present petitioners should not affect
the case against the husband.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
accepts the factual position that the complaint petition does
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23318 of 2014 dt.06-09-2017
5
not specify any role of the petitioners in the alleged act of
harassment.
11. This Court has considered the submissions made at
the bar and perused the records. A perusal of the complaint
petition makes it clear that there are only vague allegations
in the complaint petition against these petitioners. and no
prima facie case is made out on a reading of the same.
12. This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order
dated 20.09.2008, in so far as it relates to the present
petitioners only. It is made clear that the observations of this
Court hereinabove, would not effect the merit of the case
against the husband of the complainant/Opposite Party No.
2 and the order shall not be construed any other way to the
benefit of the non-petitioner/accused.
13. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.09.2017
Transmission Date 07.09.2017
