Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14126 of 2009 ===================================================== 1. Dinesh Prasad Baranwal, son of Late Gaya Prasad Baranwal, Retired Sr. A.E.O. Permanent resident of Mohalla-Dagbartoli, Rosra, District-Samastipur (Bihar) residing at Mohalla-Madhopur, P.S. Basudeopur (Kotwali), District-Munger(Bihar). 2. Prabhabati Devi alias Prabha Baranwal, urf Munni, wife of Shri Dinesh Prasad Baranwal, Permanent resident of Mohalla- Dagbartoli, Rosra, District-Samastipur (Bihar) residing at Mohalla- Madhopur, P.S. Basudeopur (Kotwali), District-Munger (Bihar). 3. Pankaj Kumar, husband of Smt. Sangeeta Kumari, son of Shri Dinesh Prasad Baranwal, Permanent resident of Mohalla- Madhopur, P.S. Basudeopur (Kotwali), District-Munger (Bihar) residing at 439-C, Shipra Suncity, P.S. Indirapuram, District- Ghaziabad (U.P.). .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sangeeta Kumari, wife of Pankaj Kumar, daughter of Shri Rabinder Prasad, Advocate, Mohalla-D.N. Das Road, Langartoli, P.S. Kadamkuan, District-Patna (Bihar). .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER -------------------- 4 9-04-2012 The petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the order dated 21.1.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.3304(C) of 2007 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, summoning the petitioners, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14126 of 2009 (4) dt.09-04-2012 2 / 5 2 2. The brief facts of the case relevant to this application are that the opposite party no.2, Sangeeta Kumari, filed the Complaint Case No.3304(C) of 2007 against the petitioners alleging therein that her marriage was performed with the petitioner no.3, Pankaj Kumar, on 29.11.1999 and she went to her Sasural in Bidai. About two years after her marriage, the behaviour of the petitioners was proper. In the third week of the month of December, 2001, she went with her husband, Pankaj Kumar, to her Sasural, situated at Munger, where her husband, Pankaj Kumar, in presence of her father-in-law and mother- in-law, the petitioner nos.1 and 2, asked her to bring cash of Rs.5,00,000/- to establish a factory. At that time, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 also told her to ask to her father and brother for cash of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the opposite party no.2 made protest, then she was abused by the petitioners. In the last week of the month of December, 2001, she came to her Maika at Patna with her husband, Pankaj Kumar, and asked about the demand to her parents and brothers. At that time, her parents tried to convince her husband, Pankaj Kumar, showing their inability to fulfill the demand, on which, her husband, Pankaj Kumar, became annoyed and accompanying her in the last week of December, 2001 to Delhi, where she was being tortured through various modes. The opposite party no.2 informed her in-laws, the petitioner nos.1 and 2, on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14126 of 2009 (4) dt.09-04-2012 3 / 5 3 telephone about harassment at the hands of her husband but they were also adamant on demand of cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and, thereafter, she was harassed and tortured mentally and physically. On 7.12.2005, her husband, Pankaj Kumar, assaulted her at the residence situated at Ghaziabad and driven out her alongwith her children from the residence in the night. The opposite party no.2 informed her brother, Rohit Kumar, on telehphone at his residence at Delhi, who came and took her and her children at his residence. Thereafter, on 9.12.2005 she alongwith her children came to her Maika at Patna. On 14.2.2006, all the petitioners came to Patna and showed their mistakes and she was taken to Delhi by them on 15.2.2006 but there was no change in the attitude of the petitioners and on 2.10.2007, in presence of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, her husband, Pankaj Kumar, abused and assaulted her. Later on, on 14.10.2007, she was also abused and assaulted by the petitioners and driven out from the house situated at Ghaziabad alongwith her children. Anyhow, the opposite party no.2 alongwith her children came to the residence of her brother situated at Noida and, thereafter, she came to her Maika at Patna alongwith her children on 18.11.2007. Thereafter, on 24.11.2007, all the petitioners came to her Maika and told her to ask her parents to give Rs.5,00,000/-. At that time, her husband, Pankaj Kumar, also gave threatening that if Rs.5,00,000/- was not given, he would perform his Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14126 of 2009 (4) dt.09-04-2012 4 / 5 4 remarriage. When the opposite party no.2 showed her inability, she was abused and assaulted by the petitioners. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint case, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act through the impugned order dated 21.1.2008. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that it would appear from the complaint petition that the demand, as alleged, is not related to the marriage, so Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would not be attracted against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to the filing of the Matrimonial Case No.128 of 2007 by the petitioner no.3, Pankaj Kumar, against the opposite party no.2

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.