Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35351 of 2008 ===================================================== Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, son of Sri Janki Nandan Singh, resident of village- Deokali, Police Station-Guraru, District-Gaya. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Punam Roy, daughter of Kumud Narayn Roy, resident of village- Dahia, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Begusarai, at present resident of Mohalla-Anandpur, P.S. Begusarai (Town), District- Begusarai. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Nasrul Hoda Khan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, A.P.P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER --------------- 6 2-03-2012 The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 7.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006 (G.R. No.2779 of 2006), taking cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioner, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar. 2. In brief, the case is that on the basis of the complaint petition of the opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, as forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, to the concerned police Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35351 of 2008 (6) dt.02-03-2012 2 / 13 2 station for investigation and submission of final form, Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006 was instituted under [STATUTE] against the accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner. 3. As per the complaint petition of opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, which is the basis of the F.I.R. of Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006, the marriage of the opposite party no.2, Punam Roy, was performed on 7.10.2005 with the accused- petitioner, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, son of accused no.3, Janki Nandan Singh, according to Vaidik customs in Arya Samaj Temple. After the marriage, opposite party no.2, stayed with her husband, the accused-petitioner, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, upto 31.12.2005 in Room No.45 of Patna Medical College Hostel, as wife and husband. On 1.1.2006, opposite party no.2 went to her sasural village-Deokali with her husband, the accused-petitioner, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, and used to reside there. The accused no.6, Nilam Devi and the accused no.7, Tuni Kumari, Nanads of opposite party no.2, used to reside at the sasural of opposite party no.2, where their husbands, the accused no.8, Sitaram Singh, and accused no.9, Sushil Kumar Verma, used to visit usually. While the behaviour of in-laws of opposite party no.2 was good with her upto June, 2006, on knowing about conceiving of pregnancy of female issue by her in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35351 of 2008 (6) dt.02-03-2012 3 / 13 3 the last week of July, 2006, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Dewars, Gotni, Nanads and Nandosi, started to misbehave and harass her taunting that if her husband, the accused-petitioner, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, was married somewhere else, at least, they would have received Rs.20,00,000/- in dowry. Ultimately, the opposite party no.2 was asked by the accused to bring Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry by giving threatening that otherwise the remarriage of her husband, the accused-petitoner, would be performed. In spite of showing inability of her father to fulfill the demand by the opposite party no.2, she was being tortured in various modes for demand by the accused. The opposite party no.2 informed to her Maika about her torture, on which her parents alongwith others came to her sasural on 30.7.2006 and tried to convince to her in- laws and also gave written complaint to the police station. While opposite party no.2 was kept properly about 10 days by the in- laws, but, thereafter, she was being again tortured and conspiracy was being made by in-laws to get her pregnancy aborted, then the opposite party no.2 sent information to her parents. In the night of 12.9.2006, her in-laws, named as accused in the F.I.R., entered in her room and started to assault through fists and slaps with intention to get her pregnancy aborted and her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil to burn her and her husband, the accused- Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35351 of 2008 (6) dt.02-03-2012 4 / 13 4 petitioner, tried to set her on fire, but anyhow she saved her life and on reaching of her mother at her sasural, she went to her Maika. It has also been alleged by the opposite party no.2 that on reaching at Maika, she was taken by her mother and others at Meera Nursing Home where she was admitted. While she was saved but her pregnancy was aborted. On investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, who, on perusal of the case diary and the chargsheet, arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient material on record to proceed with the case and, accordingly, took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner through the impugned order dated 7.6.2008. 4. The sole submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the complaint petition, which is the basis of the F.I.R. of Begusarai (Town) P.S. Case No.393 of 2006, it is apparent that the occurrence as alleged had taken place in sasural village-Deokali of the opposite party no.2, situated in the district of Gaya, and the opposite party no.2 came from her sasural village with her mother to her Maika situated in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35351 of 2008 (6) dt.02-03-2012 5 / 13 5 the district of Begusarai. As su

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.