Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17039 of 2011 =================================================== 1. Asha Devi W/o Suresh Singh, Resident Of Muhalla, Katharibagh, P.S- Chapra(T) , Distt- Saran At Chapra. 2. Suresh Singh S/O Late Harinandan Singh, Resident Of Muhalla, Katharibagh, P.S- Chapra(T) , Distt- Saran At Chapra. 3. Pratibha Kumari D/O Suresh Singh, Resident Of Muhalla, Katharibagh, P.S- Chapra(T), Distt- Saran At Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Priyanka Soni D/O Shiv Chandra Prasad Singh, R/O Mohalla-Shakti Nagar, P.S- Chapra(M) Distt- Saran At Chapra. .... .... Opposite Party/s =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kamaluddin, Adv. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER C.A.V 5 24-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the O.P. No. 2. 2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 18th April 2011 passed in T.R. No. 188 of 2011 by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed and the case has been fixed for framing of charge. 3. It appears from the record that a Complaint petition, vide Complaint Case no. 3338 of 2008 was filed by one Priyanka Soni. The Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, in short, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17039 of 2011 P2 / 25 2 referred to as the „Code‟) sent the matter for investigation to the Police and later on the case was instituted as Chapra Mufassil P.S.Case no. 154 of 2008. In the complaint petition, the complainant has stated, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Manoranjan Prasad Singh, Indu Singh and Upendra Singh are accused persons claiming that Rakesh Kumar Singh is her husband, Manoranjan Prasad Singh is her father in-law, Indu Singh is her mother in-law. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that on 9th July 2008 the complainant had married with Rakesh Kumar Singh according to Hindu rites and rituals. It has been stated that her father had given Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs), ornament, clothes and articles. It has been alleged that the complainant at the time of Ruksadi, demanded Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) and one Maruti car within one month, otherwise it may lead to bad consequence. The complainant went to her in-laws‟ place (Sasural) at Shakti Nagar where Rakesh Kumar Singh and the complainant lived as husband and wife. The marriage could not move smoothly as they were exerting pressure for money and Maruti car. When her father could know about the behaviour of husband and in-laws, he went and tried to assuage that they should not behave in such a way with his daughter but Rakesh Kumar Singh and Indu Singh Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17039 of 2011 P3 / 25 3 caught hold her hair and all the four accused persons assaulted and asked her father to take away his daughter otherwise her dead body would go from the in-laws‟ place. It has been stated that on 10th October 2008 the accused persons forcefully expelled the complainant from the house and when she resisted, they tried to kill the prosecutrix. On the next day, her father went to her in-laws‟ place to settle the dispute but the accused persons did not mollify the demand for money. 4. It appears that at three stages, charge sheets have been submitted by Police. At the first instance, the Police submitted charge sheet No. 45 of 2009 dated 17th April 2009 (Annexure-4) for the offences under [STATUTE] against Rakesh Kr. Singh, Manoranjan Pd. Singh and Indu Singh. It also appears that there was a 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding in between the parents of the prosecutrix as well as the accused persons. The learned court below vide order dated 26th May 2009 took cognizance under [STATUTE] and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. It appears that a discharge application dated 17th August 2009 was filed making a prayer that no case is made out under [STATUTE] . The Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17039 of 2011 P4 / 25 4 learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Saran at Chapra, vide order dated 21st October 2009 rejected the application which was challenged before this Court in Cr.Misc. No. 39879 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated 19th February 2010 (Annexure- 7) has held that no case is made out under [STATUTE] . Thereafter 1st supplementary charge sheet No. 211 of 2009 was filed against Upendra Singh and Birendra Singh. They were made accused in the case. Upendra Singh and Birendra Singh had challenged the order of cognizance before this Court, vide Cr. Misc. No. 8422 of 2010 and this Court quashed the cognizance taken against Sri Birendra Singh, but allowed the case to continue against Upendra Singh. A 2nd supplementary charge sheet was filed against Suresh Singh, Asha Devi and Pratibha Devi (Petitioners of this case) claiming that Suresh Singh knowing full well of the 1st marriage, got Pratibha married with Rakesh Kumar Singh and the court took cognizance against them on 4th September 2010/24th September 2010 for the offence under [STATUTE] but it appears from the record that the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 15th January 2011 expunged [STATUTE] . 6. The petitioners of the present case are none Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17039 of 2011 P5 / 25 5 other than it has been claimed that Pratibha Kumari, petitioner no.3 is daughter of Suresh Singh and 2nd wife of Rakesh Singh. Similarly, Asha Devi and Suresh Singh are new mother in-law and father in-law

Applicable IPC Section: 376

Statute Text:
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Rape. Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.