Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37246 of 2010 (7) dt.23-03-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.37246 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. MANIK RATAN CHATTERJEE S/O LATE PARITOSH KUMAR CHATTERJEE 2. ERA CHATTERJEE, W/O SRI MANIK RATAN CHATTERJEE BOTH R/O C/8b, PUNAICHAK, POLICE STATION-SHASTRI NAGAR IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANANDITA MUKHERJEE, W/O LATE SUKANT MUKHERJEE, D/O SRI ANIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE, RADHA RANI VILLA, RAM KRISHNA PATH, DR. B.BHATTARCHARYA ROAD, PASHIM PATEL NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. J.Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN C.A.V. ORDER 7. 23.03.2012 1. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.07.2010 passed by the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2010 by which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. According to the written report filed by the informant/opposite party no.2, Anandita Mukherjee, it is alleged that the petitioners herein being Mausa and Mausi of her husband, late Sukant Mukherjee were residents of Punaichak, Patna and had mediated in the marriage of their nephew with the informant, and that various amounts such as Rs.2,50,000/- in cash/cheque, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37246 of 2010 (7) dt.23-03-2012 2 200 gm. gold, 500 gm. silver etc. were given as gifts at the time of marriage by the father of the informant. It is further alleged that sometime after the marriage the informant’s husband and the accused persons started demanding dowry, which demands were supported by the petitioners. It has specifically been alleged that these petitioners went from Patna on the request of the informant’s husband and took part in the beating and assaulting of the informant, and also that at the behest of the petitioner no.1 the informant’s husband and dewar attempted to kill the informant by throttling her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the written report of the informant is mischievous, as it is in fact the informant and her family members who have inflicted torture on the informant’s husband and his family members, ultimately leading to his suicide. In this regard, he invites attention to the suicide note left behind by the husband as contained in annexure-2, wherein it is stated that the informant wanted to obtain compassionate appointment after causing his death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they are not members of the immediate family of the informant’s husband rather they are his Mausa and Mausi, and had merely been involved in the negotiations for the marriage. It is submitted that Mausa and Mausi Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37246 of 2010 (7) dt.23-03-2012 3 cannot be treated as relatives within the meaning of Section 498(A) Cr.P.C. in the spirit of the decision of this Court in Cr.Misc. No. 23666/2003 (Dr. Sharda Nandan Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) wherein the father-in-law of the sister of the husband was held not to be a relative of the husband. 5. It is further stated that the petitioners reside in Patna whereas the offences are said to have been committed at the informant’s matrimonial home at Katihar, and as such the petitioners ought not to be held liable for the offences alleged. In support of his submissions, he relied on a decision rendered in 2010 (7) SCC 667 (Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand) as also on the decision of this Court in Cr.Misc. No. 41228/2008 (Rina Sinha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.). He has also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions 2009 (6) SCC 667 (Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra); 2009 (10) SCC 184 (Neelu Chopra & Anr. Vs. Bharti); (2010) 7 SCC 667 (Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand); 2005 (2) PLJR(SC) 193 (Ramesh & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu). 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submits that on the uncontroverted statements as alleged in the complaint petition, offences are made out against the petitioners and the impugned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37246 of 2010 (7) dt.23-03-2012 4 order of cognizance cannot be faulted as it is a preliminary stage where the learned Magistrate is required only to see whether or not a prima facie case is made out. 7. He further submits that even if for a moment it be assumed though not admitted that the petitioners are not relatives of the husband of the informant, that at the highest may be a defense as far as the offence under Section 498 (A) I.P.C. is concerned but there are clear allegations rendering them liable for the offences under [STATUTE] . as well as Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. On this score as well, therefore, there is no error in the impugned cognizance order. 8. As regards the suicide note left behind by the husband it has been submitted that such suicide note has presently not been made part of complaint case no. 1687/2000 which was filed by the husband’s brother Srikant Mukharji, just three months after the suicide. In any event, such document may not be looked into for the purpose of testing the validity of the cognizance order being not a part of the record of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 invites attention to his I.A. No. 222/2012 filed with a prayer for vacating the interim order granted by this Court wherein, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37246 of 2010 (7) dt.23-03-2012 5 inter alia, it has been stated that some of the co-accused members of the husband’s fami

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.