Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26575 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Vina Kumari wife of Shashi Bhushan Singh, resident of village- Keshopur, Babhangaon, P.S.-Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur, daughter of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village-Dora Chapra, P.S.- Kathaiya, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Bandana Kuamr wife of Rajnish Kumar, resident of village-Paterah, P.S.- Belsar, District-Vaishali, daughter of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village-Dora Chapra, P.S.-Kathaiya, District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Nand Kishore Singh, son of late Bhawanthi Singh, resident of village- Sorahatha, P.S.-Belsar, District- Vaishali, 4. Tripurari Singh @ Tripurari Saran son of Nand Kishore Singh, resident of village- Sorahatha, P.S.-Belsar, District- Vaishali, 5. Raj Paltan Singh, son of Late Fecha Singh, resident of village- Belsar, P.S.-Belsar, District- Vaisahli .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar & 2. Rama Nand Singh, son of late Anirudh Prasad Singh, resident of village-Ajijpur, P.S.-Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 3/ 19-04-2012 Heard the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 08.11.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No.1987 of 2008 by which he has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The case of the complainant is that his daughter was married with the brother of Petitioner nos. 1 and 2, but she was tortured for ends of dowry and finally thrown out of the house. It has been submitted that the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are married ‘Nanads’ of the daughter of the complainant, whereas, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26575 of 2009 (3) dt.19-04-2012 2 / 2 2 Petitioners nos. 3, 4 and 5 are co-villagers having no concern with family affairs of the daughter of the complainant. The fact is that father of Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had filed an informatory petition on 04.01.2008 that his daughter-in-law had been taken away by the complainant with all jewellery with promise that she will come back soon. However, when he went for her ‘Bidai’, the complainant refused to let her return to the matrimonial home and instead assaulted him. Thereafter, the husband of the daughter of the complainant filed Case No.97 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal rights on 21.04.2008 and four months later the present complaint was instituted evidently to create a defence in restitution matter. Notices had been issued to the Opposite Party No.2, who has appeared through a duly executed Vakalatnama, but none appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 for the second successive date. In the fact situation of the complaint, I am inclined to allow the application considering the relationship of the petitioners with the daughter of the complainant as also the marital status of the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the order dated 08.11.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No.1987 of 2008 is hereby set aside in so far as it relates to the petitioners only. Application stands allowed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.