Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45229 of 2008 ===================================================== 1. Shushila Devi, wife of Shyamdeo Sharma. 2. Shyamdeo Sharma, son of Dasharath Sharma. 3. Satyendra Narayan Sharma. 1 to 3 nos. son of Dasharath Sharma. 4. Mantu Sharma, son of Shyamdeo Sharma. All resident of village-Gira, P.S. Olra, District-Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Savita Devi, daughter of Kapildeo Sharma, resident of village- Tikri, Mohalla-Shahpur, Post + P.S. and District-Aurangabad. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. B.J. Ojha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ----------------- 6 27-02-2012 The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 6.8.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.11 of 2007/1877 of 2007 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, 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 complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.11 of 2007, against the accused-petitioners alleging therein Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45229 of 2008 (6) dt.27-02-2012 2 / 5 2 that he performed the marriage of his daughter, Savita Devi, on 24.10.2006 with the accused-petitioner no.4, Mantu Sharma, according to Hindu customs at Indore (Madhya Pradesh), where he used to do the job in the furniture’s shop of Subhash Sharma. At the time of marriage, he had given the cash of Rs.25,000/- and the other articles worth Rs.75,000/-. After the marriage of his daughter, on 30.10.2006, he alongwith his daughter, other family members and son-in-law, Mantu Sharma, accused-petitioner no.4, returned to his house at Aurangabad. On the next day, i.e., 31.10.2006, in the morning, when the accused-petitioner no.4, Mantu Sharma, was ready to go to his village-Gira, then he was asked about performing the second marriage (Gauna) of his daughter, on which he replied that he will perform the second marriage (Gauna) ceremony after 2-4 days saying that in the second marriage (Gauna) ceremony he will take the coloured television as dowry. Thereafter, his family members showed inability to fullfil the aforesaid demand. After awaiting about one week, when his son-in-law, Mantu Sharma, did not come to perform the second marriage (Gauna) ceremony of his daughter, he alongwith the witnesses, Sunil Sharma and Ravi Sharma, went to village home-Gira of the accused-petitioner no.4, Mantu Sharma and made request to the accused-petitioners to take her Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45229 of 2008 (6) dt.27-02-2012 3 / 5 3 daughter in Bidai but they were adamant on their demand of coloured television as dowry and, ultimately, they refused to take his daughter in Bidai. As such, due to the aforesaid behaviour of the accused-petitioners, his daughter is suffering from mental cruelty. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, summoned the accused-petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act through the impugned order dated 6.8.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submission that according to the complaint petition, the marriage of Savita Devi, the daughter of the complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, was performed at Indore (Madhya Pradesh), hence, the court of Aurangabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition filed by the complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, the father of Savita Devi. The further submission is that in course of inquiry, in her statement, Rajkumari Devi, the wife of the complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, has stated that her daughter, Savita Devi, married earlier and this fact was in the knowledge of the accused-petitioner no.4, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45229 of 2008 (6) dt.27-02-2012 4 / 5 4 Mantu Sharma. As such, the subsequent marriage of Savita Devi, the daughter of the complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, alleged to be performed with the accused-petitioner no.4, is illegal, void and not acceptable in the eye of law. 5. On perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that while the marriage of Savita Devi, the daughter of the complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, is said to be performed at Indore (Madhya Pradesh) with the accused-petitioner no.4, Mantu Sharma, but it has specifically been stated in paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the complaint petition that the accused-petitioner no.4, Mantu Sharma, had come at Aurangabad to his Sasural and on being asked about performing the second marriage (Gauna) ceremony of Savita Devi, by the complainant, he made dowry demand of coloured television and due to non fulfillment of the demand, the accused-petitioners did not take Savita Devi, in Bidai. As such, the demand of dowry of coloured television, as alleged in the complaint petition, was made by the accused-petitioner no.4, Mantu Sharma, at Aurangabad. So far as the second submission that Savita Devi, the daughter of the complainant, Kapildeo Sharma, was married at the time of the alleged marriage is concerned, this fact could not be taken into consideration in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45229 of 2008 (6) dt.27-02-2012 5 / 5 5 Procedure. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this application and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. P.S./- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

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.