Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.48636 of 2007 ====================================================== 1. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Son of Dr. Ramkumar. 2. Dr. Rinki, Wife of Dr. Manoj Kumar. Both resident of Mohalla Malahipakri, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, in the town and district of Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Smt. Kanchan Bala, Daughter of Late Kali Das Gupta, at present residing at Flat No. 104, Vidya Apartment, Chitragupta Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER 28 21-03-2012 Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant although notices were issued to her. Mr. Bibhuti Pandey and Ms. Mahashweta Chatterjee had appeared on behalf of the complainant in this Court on earlier occasions. Attempts were made by this Court to reconcile the differences between the husband and wife to the extent that they should separate amicably, considering the fact that the complainant is a Commercial Tax Officer and she does not want to live with the husband who is a doctor. Both are educated persons and, therefore, this Court tried to settle their differences by getting them to agree to a consent decree of divorce, since the counsel for the complainant had argued that she was not under any circumstance ready to live with her husband. A complaint was filed by Smt. Kanchan Bala in which Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48636 of 2007 (28) dt.21-03-201 2 / 32 2 she has alleged that after her marriage, which was solemnized after giving a heavy dowry, was wrecked by her husband and mother-in-law, who began to demand money and took away her jewellery. From the complaint petition, it would appear that the allegations are mostly levelled against the husband and his mother alleging extraction of money. As far as these petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that after the complainant became pregnant they tried to abort her baby. It has also been alleged that after she gave birth to a baby she was kept deprived of her child for 15 days at the clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar, petitioner no. 1 by keeping the baby for extraneous reasons. The matter is pending in this Court for quite sometime so much so that the case became ready for framing of charges. The petitioners filed an application for discharge which was rejected on 22.1.2011. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations in the complaint petition or for that matter in the deposition of the complainant before the stage of framing of charge do not make out any offence of demand of dowry as far as these two petitioners are concerned. The only allegation levelled against petitioner no. 1 who is a child specialist is that after birth of complainant’s son, the petitioner kept the baby in his clinic for three days. It has not been alleged that the child Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48636 of 2007 (28) dt.21-03-201 3 / 32 3 was kept in the clinic for some extraneous reasons, although the submission is that the baby was kept in the incubator. Infact the allegations are vague as far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned. Rather, the allegations are unbelievable because if the petitioners or any one of them wanted to deprive her of the child, then, they would have taken appropriate steps. The allegations are malicious and exaggerated to bring the petitioners within the domain of criminal proceedings and they are not substantiated in any manner. Not a single word has been uttered against petitioner no. 2 in the deposition of Smt. Kanchan Bala. In the complaint it is said that she in collusion with her husband deprived of her child which fact however, is not substantiated as the child has always lived with the mother. In the circumstances aforesaid, I find that as far as the brother-in-law and married sister-in-law are concerned, no case is made out against them under [STATUTE] and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This quashing application is, accordingly, allowed. Sanjay/- (Sheema Ali Khan, 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.