Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22829 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Umardaraz, son of Md. Piyare Asdaque, resident of Village- Lakshmipur, P.S. Belaganj, District- Gaya, present residing at Mohalla- Pachrang Patti, Maulana Paan Merchant, near Dargaah Rasool, P.S. Jaipur, District-Jaipur (Rajasthan) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Guria Parween D/O Allaudin, resident of Village- Lakshmipur, P.O. Lakshmipur, P.S. Belaganj, District-Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------- 2 30-11-2012 Heard Sri Gopal Govind Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, who is husband of the complainant/Opp.Party no.2, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order, which was passed long back on 16.05.2005 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 340 of 2005. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of cognizance, has argued that in the complaint petition, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22829 of 2011 (2) dt.30-11-2012 2 / 3 2 there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and on this ground alone, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2009)10 SCC 184; Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs. Bharti. He has specifically referred to paragraph-9 of the said Judgment to substantiate his submission that in absence of specific allegation, order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Of course, the petitioner has brought on record a copy of the complaint petition, but the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation has not been brought on record. In the complaint petition, there is specific allegation that after solemnization of marriage, the in-laws of the complainant started demanding dowry and she was also mentally and physically tortured repeatedly. Even by putting pressure, accused persons including the petitioner had extracted some money from the father of the complainant after the marriage. After going through the materials available on record as well as the fact that the order of cognizance was passed long back in the year 2005, the Court is of the opinion that the order of cognizance may not be interfered. So far Judgment of the Apex Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22829 of 2011 (2) dt.30-11-2012 3 / 3 3 Court is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no benefit can be given to the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.