IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.27406 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -133 Year- 2012 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
PURNIA
1. Shanti Devi Wife of Dinesh Rai
2. Sanjita Devi Daughter of Dinesh Rai
3. Dinesh Rai Son of Late Gaina Rai Resident of Village – Kanhaila Patol, P.S. –
Barsoi (O.P. Sudhani), District – Katihar
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajni Devi Daughter of Bejoy Rai Resident of Village – Jamira, P.S. – Baisi,
District – Purnea
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA
JAISWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-07-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned APP for the
State.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated
10.05.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Purnea in Complaint Case No. 133 of 2012 whereby the learned
Judicial Magistrate ordered to issue summon against the petitioners
finding prima facie case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against them.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27406 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017
2/4
that the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 happen to be the mother-in-law,
sister-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant. There
is no specific allegation of making of dowry demand and subjecting
the complainant to torture and cruelty for the said demand against the
petitioners. Further allegation levelled against the petitioners is
general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners have no concern with
the affairs of the complainant and her husband. Petitioner no.3,
namely, Dinesh Rai has filed a complaint case no. 3349 of 2011
under Sections 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the
complainant and her parents much earlier to this complaint case. The
complainant has filed this false and frivolous case with ulterior
motive to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case under hand due
to filing of the aforesaid complaint case against her and no prima
facie case is made out against the petitioners in the present case.
4. Learned APP vehemently opposed the aforesaid
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners submitting that
the complainant in her solemn affirmation and the witnesses
examined during the course of enquiry have supported the
prosecution case. Hence, prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners as well. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
failed to point out any illegality and impropriety in the impugned
order warranting quashing of the impugned order.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27406 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017
3/4
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears
that the complaint petition was filed by the complainant against her
in-laws including her husband with the allegation in succinct that her
marriage was performed with the accused no.1 Kamal Rai and after
that she went to her marital house. She was blessed with a female
child out of the said wedlock. The accused persons made demand of
a cow and she goat as dowry which was fulfilled by her father. The
accused persons again started demanding a motorcycle and on failure
to cough up the demand, they subjected the complainant to torture
and left her at her maternal house and refused to take her back till the
non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand.
7. From perusal of the records, it appears that in
buttress of her case, the complainant has examined herself on solemn
affirmation and her three witnesses who have supported the
complaint case. After perusing the complaint petition, solemn
affirmation of the complainant and deposition of the witnesses, the
learned Judicial Magistrate finding prima facie case under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act took cognizance of the offence against the accused
persons including the petitioners.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27406 of 2014 dt.26-07-2017
4/4
8. From perusal of the record, it further appears that the
case under hand is counterblast of the complaint case filed by the
petitioner no.3 against the complainant and her parents much earlier.
Moreover, the allegations levelled against the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and
3 who happen to be mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law
respectively of the complainant are not specific rather omnibus and
nothing has been cited by the complainant as to what motivated the
petitioners to make dowry demand from the complainant.
9. Thus, I do not find any prima facie case against the
petitioners and the order taking cognizance against these petitioners
is an abuse of process of the court. Accordingly, this quashing
petition is allowed and the order taking cognizance against these
petitioners is quashed.
(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)
Mishra/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 27.07.2017
Transmission 27.07.2017
Date