IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15195 of 2015
Arising Out of Case No.-1288 Year-2004 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
Sushila Devi W/o Late Ramadhar Singh Resident of Village Agrehan, P.S.
Bariyapur, District Munger.
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sarita Kumari D/o Satya Narayan Prasad Resident of Mohalla Chak Basu
Rambagh, P.S. Mithanpure, District- Muzaffarpur.
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. JharkhandiUpadhyay, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-05-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
‘Code’) for the following relief:
“That the instant application is being filed for
quashing the order dated 29.09.2004 order taking
cognizance passed in complaint case no. 1288 of 2004
and passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur whereby and where
under cognizance has been taken for offences under
sections 323, 498A of the India Penal Code and 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner on the
basis of a complaint lodged by the opposite party No-
2.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15195 of 2015 dt.13-05-2019
2/4
3. The allegation against the petitioner and eight others
is of torture, assault and demand of dowry and also conspiracy to
kill the opposite party no. 2-complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she
is the mother of the husband of the opposite party no. 2. It was
submitted that the opposite party no. 2 herself did not reside in the
matrimonial home and the allegations made are totally incorrect.
Learned counsel further submitted that the opposite party no. 2
herself had filed Matrimonial Case No. 370 of 2010 against the
son of the petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite party no.
2, seeking divorce and by order dated 04.11.2011, the same has
been allowed. Learned counsel submitted that once the marriage is
dissolved, there is no occasion for any prosecution for demand of
dowry.
5. Learned APP submitted that the complaint case was
filed in the year 2004 whereas the matrimonial case was filed by
the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2010 and the judgment came
on 04.11.2011. It was submitted that thus, in the year 2004 when
the complaint case was filed, the opposite party no. 2 was very
much the daughter-in-law of the petitioner and she having faced
assault, torture and demand of dowry, the petitioner deserves to be
punished. It was further submitted that the order of cognizance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15195 of 2015 dt.13-05-2019
3/4
challenged in the present application is dated 29.09.2004, whereas
the application has been filed in the year 2015, i.e., after more than
ten and a half years, which itself renders the same unfit for
consideration.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
does not find any merit in the present application.
7. As has rightly been submitted by learned APP, the
complaint case is of the year 2004 and the order of cognizance also
of the same year and, thus, the present application challenging
such cognizance order filed in the year 2015, is clearly not fit to be
entertained on the ground of gross delay and laches. Further, the
main ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that there
is already a divorce between her son and the opposite party no. 2,
is of no consequence, as the matrimonial case itself was filed in
the year 2010 and, that too, by the opposite party no. 2 and the
judgment came on 04.11.2011. Moreover, filing of a divorce case
by the opposite party no. 2, who is the wife, itself is proof of the
fact that she was tortured in the matrimonial home. The same
having been accepted and upheld by the Court while granting
divorce to the opposite party no. 2 also indicates that the allegation
made in the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 is correct.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15195 of 2015 dt.13-05-2019
4/4
Thus, in the aforesaid background, it cannot be said that the order
taking cognizance suffers from any legal or factual infirmity.
Obviously, the parties shall have full opportunity to prove their
case during trial but, at the present stage, such order taking
cognizance, in the considered opinion of the Court, does not
warrant any interference by the Court in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 of the Code.
8. For reasons aforesaid, the application stands
dismissed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T