Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4395 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Chandrama Rai, S/O Late Sheo Deyal Rai, Resident of Village - Jamira, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara. 2. Sima Kumari, D/O Chandrama Rai, Resident of Village - Jamira, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara. 3. Mnorma Kumari, D/O Chandrama Rai, Resident of Village - Jamira, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara. 4. Rima Kumar, D/O Chandrama Rai, Resident of Village - Jamira, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara. 5. Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Rai, S/O Chandrama Rai, Resident of Village - Jamira, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara. 6. Kalawati Devi, W/O Chandrama Rai, Resident of Village - Jamira, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Shobha Devi, D/O Har Narayan Rai, W/O Jitendra Kumar Rai, Resident of Village - Dhamar, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.14562 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Jitendra Kumar Rai, S/O Chandrama Rai, R/O Village - Jamira, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur, Ara .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shobha Devi, D/O Har Narayan Rai, W/O Jitendra Kumar Rai, R/O Village - Dharmar, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No.4395 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. (In Cr.Misc. No.14562 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiva Ranjan, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2:Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocates. For the State : Mr. :Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4395 of 2011 (4) dt.16-10-2012 2 4 16-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. With the consent of the parties, both the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order. These applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 23.9.2010 passed in Case No.1310© of 2010, Tr. No.2847 of 2010 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ara, Bhojpur by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with one Jitendra Kumar Rai (petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 14562 of 2011)on 1.3.2008 according to Hindu rites and at the time of marriage Rs. 1,90,000/- along with golden chain, Hero Honda Motorcycle and other articles were given to the husband. It has further been alleged that even at the time of marriage the father-in-law of opposite party no.2 insisted for payment of Rs.8,00,000/- but with the intervention of well-wishers the marriage could be solemnized. It has further been alleged that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4395 of 2011 (4) dt.16-10-2012 3 even at in-laws place opposite party no.2 was tortured by the accused persons physically and mentally. It has further been alleged that all the accused persons were not providing the food and clothes. When opposite party no.2 informed about the behaviour of petitioners to her family members, on being asked about ill treatment, all the accused persons in one voice demanded the dowry. On the strength of solemn affirmation and evidences of witnesses the court below took cognizance against all the family members vide order dated 23.9.2010 which is under challenge before this Court. On reading of the complaint petition it appears that husband is the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 14562 of 2011. On considering the material available on record this Court does not find any merit and accordingly the present application is dismissed. So far Cr. Misc. No. 4395 of 2001 is concerned, on perusal of the complaint petition it appears that there is no allegation whatsoever against petitioner nos. 2 to 5 as petitioners, Sima Kumari, Mnorma Kumari and Rima Kumari are un-married Nanad whereas petitioner Satendra Kumar @ Satendra Rai is Debar. In the complaint petition it does not disclose that they have played any active role either for Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4395 of 2011 (4) dt.16-10-2012 4 demand of dowry or any physical torture to opposite party no.2. Merely there is omnibus allegation against them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 in paragraph nos. 34 and 35 has held that it is a matter of common knowledge that all the family members are being made accused in a case under [STATUTE] . It will be appropriate to quote paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment: “34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realiti

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.