Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45521 of 2008 (6) dt.06-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45521 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar ,son of Ram Ballabha Ram @ Ram Balak Ram 2. Ram Ballabha Ram @ Ram Balak Ram, son of late Tapsi Rajak .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Pd. Bharti Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA) 6 06-01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 26.6.2008 passed in complaint case No. 41 of 2008 by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar at Aurangabad, summoning the accused- petitioners, finding prima-facie case under [STATUTE] and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45521 of 2008 (6) dt.06-01-2012 It appears that Opposite party no.2 Baby Kumari filed a complaint petition numbered as Complaint case No. 41 of 2008 against the petitioner in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar Aurangabad, making allegation that her marriage was performed with petitioner no.1 Anil Kumar, S/o petitioner no.2 Ram Ballabh Ram alias Ram Balak Ram, according to the Hindu Customs on 27.7.2007 and she began to live in her sasural. After passing over some days, she was being tortured by the accused- petitioners for demand of cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a motorcycle from her father. When she showed inability to fulfill the demand, the accused- petitioners assaulted her and driven out from her Sasural house, keeping her Box, containing the clothes and gold ornaments. The learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar Aurangabad, on inquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the accused- petitioners through the impugned order dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45521 of 2008 (6) dt.06-01-2012 26.6.2008, finding prima-facie case under [STATUTE] and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submissions that Opposite party No.2 Baby Kumari has filed Complaint case No. 41 of 2008, claiming petitioner No. 1 Anil Kumar as husband. In fact marriage of petitioner No.1 has been performed with Kiran Kumari and due to wedlock of Kiran Kumari, petitioners have two children, which will appear from the Solemn Affirmation of complainant itself. More so, Opposite party no.2 is not the wife of petitioner no.1, rather she is the wife of one Parmanand Kumar, son of Rajendra Rajak of village Mustafabad, P.S. Rampur, District- Gaya, which would appear from Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Copy of Matrimonial case No. 39 of 2008 the application filed by Permanand Kumar against Opposite party No.2 Baby Kumari, claiming his marriage was solemnized with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45521 of 2008 (6) dt.06-01-2012 Opposite party no.2 Baby Kumari in the year 2004 with prayer of restitution of conjugal rights. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party no.2, while made submissions that the learned SDJM has rightly passed the summoning order for the offence under [STATUTE] and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act but he has not controverted the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. On perusal of the Solemn Affirmation after complainant- Opposite party no.2 Baby Kumari, as it appears from the complaint petition (Annexure 1 to the application) that she has herself admitted in her S.A. that the marriage of her husband (petitioner Anil Kumar) was earlier performed and from his first wife there are two children. She has also stated that her father had performed the marriage after inquiry. Annexure-2 to this application is the copy of the petition of Matrimonial case No. 39 of 2008 filed by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45521 of 2008 (6) dt.06-01-2012 Permanand Kumar, son of Rajendra Rajak against Opposite party No.2 Baby Kumari, in which he has claimed to perform the marriage with Opposite party no.2 in the year 2004 and prayer has been made for restitution of conjugal rights. From Annexure-2 to this application, which is copy of the petition of Matrimonial Case No. 39 of 2008, it appears that Opposite party no.2 is already married with Permanand Kumar, who has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and from the SA of Opposite party no.2 it also appears that marriage of petitioner no.1 Anil Kumar is already performed with another lady and had two children. Under the facts and circumstance, [STATUTE] would have no application at all in the present case. As such the summoning order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the learned SDJM, Daudnagar Aurangabad appears to be abuse of the process of the Court and it is accordingly quashed and the application is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45521 of 2008 (6) dt.06-01-2012 allowed. Arun Kumar/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, 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.