Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36231 of 2008 ===================================================== 1. Amit Kumar Bhokta, son of Kishori Prasad Bhokta. 2. Kishori Prasad Bhokta, son of Late Shiro Bhokta. 3. Sulochana Devi, wife of Kishori Prasad Bhokta. 4. Raghav Bhokta, son of Shiro Bhokta. All resident of village-Shirsa, P.S. Madhepura, District-Deoghar. 5. Jai Ram Singh, son of Late Mohan Singh. 6. Bebi Devi, wife of Sri Jai Ram Singh. Both resident of village-Laskar Dih, P.S. Sarwa, District-Deoghar. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar . 2. Tuni Devi, daughter of Sri Rajendra Singh, resident of village- Kewali, P.S. Sonu, District-Jamui. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s. Subodh Kumar Jha & Bidhan Chandra Jha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ----------------- 5 29-02-2012 The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 10.7.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.190(C) of 2008/Trial No.2276 of 2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, summoning the accused-petitioners, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Tuni Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36231 of 2008 (5) dt.29-02-2012 2 / 6 2 Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.190(C) of 2008, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, on 14.2.2008 against the accused-petitioners alleging therein that her marriage was performed on 2.7.2006 with the accused- petitioner no.1, Amit Kumar Bhokta, according to Hindu customs, in which his close relatives were present. After marriage, she was being misbehaved and tortured by the accused-petitioners for more cash and articles in dowry. She sent the message to her father regarding the aforesaid occurrence, on which her father alongwith witness, Susun Singh, came to her sasural and talked to the accused- petitioners but the accused-petitioners were adamant on their demand and clearly told that unless cash Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle are provided to them, they will not keep her. Thereafter, her father alongwith the witnesses returned from her sasural saying that arrangement of a motorcycle and the cash would be made and asked the accused-petitioners to come for the Bidai after one week. After one week, when the accused-petitioner nos.1, 2 and 5 came to her Maika for her Bidai, then her father gave Rs.20,000/- to them with a request to make arrangement for giving a motorcycle within two months, thereafter, she was taken in Bidai by them. After one month, the opposite party no.2 again sent message to her father about the ill-treatment at the hands of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36231 of 2008 (5) dt.29-02-2012 3 / 6 3 accused-petitioners. Thereafter, her father came to her sasural and showed his inability to make arrangement of a motorcycle. Ultimately, she was driven out from her sasural in the month of January, 2008 by the accused-petitioners snatching articles and ornaments. On reaching at her Maika, she narrated the incident to her parents, thereafter, none turned up from her sasural to know her whereabouts. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, summoned the accused-petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act through the impugned order dated 10.7.2008. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that the present complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no.2 maliciously due to filing of the chargesheet on 21.9.2007 by the police in Madhupur P.S. Case No.137 of 2006 lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of the petitioner no.3, Sulochana Devi, under [STATUTE] on 5.7.2006 regarding the kidnapping of his son, the petitioner no.1, Amit Kumar Bhokta, on 4.7.2006 against one Mukesh Kumar Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36231 of 2008 (5) dt.29-02-2012 4 / 6 4 Singh, son of Sikandar Singh of village-Laskar Dih, P.S. Sarwan, District-Deoghar, who happens to be the cousin brother (Mausera Bhai) of opposite party no.2. It has also been submitted that after lodging of the aforesaid Madhupur P.S. Case No.137 of 2006 on 5.7.2006, the police, in course of investigation, recovered the petitioner no.1, Amit Kumar Bhokta from village-Kewali, which is the Maika of opposite party no.2, on 6.7.2006, which would appear from Annexure-‘5’ to this application. Thereafter, on the basis of application dated 7.7.2006 of the police, the statement of the petitioner no.1, Amit Kumar Bhokta, was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madhupur at Deoghar on 7.7.2006. In his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner no.1, Amit Kumar Bhokta, detailed about his kidnapping and also performing of his marriage forcibly, which would appear from Annexure-‘4’ to this application. The police on investigation submitted the chargesheet in Madhupur P.S. Case No.137 of 2006 against the F.I.R. named accused, Mukesh Kumar Singh, alongwith some others on 21.9.2007, which would appear from Annexure-‘6’ to this application. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 maliciously and with oblique motive filed the present Complaint Case No.190(C) of 2008 on 14.2.2008 against the accused-petitioners, in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36231 of 2008 (5) dt.29-02-2012 5

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.