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