Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34883 of 2009 ====================================================== Harendra Yadav son of Bindeshwari Yadav @ Mangaru Yadav, Resident of village Hathikhal, Police Station Fulwaria (O.P. Shripur), District Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Babu Ram Yadav son of Rajdhari Yadav, Resident of village Amwan Nakchhed, Police Station Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 18-04-2012 Heard Shri Bakhshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1/State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 21.5.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.63 of 2009. By the said Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34883 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 2 / 7 2 order, after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and in respect of other accused persons, who are relative of the petitioner, cognizance order has been passed under [STATUTE] . Learned Senior Counsel, while assailing the impugned order, submits that in the complaint petition, same allegation was levelled against the petitioner as well as three others. However, the learned Magistrate has passed the order of cognizance under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code only against the petitioner and cognizance order in respect of other accused persons have been passed under [STATUTE] . According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has committed gross error in not summoning other Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34883 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 3 / 7 3 accused persons under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that in the complaint petition, there was no allegation of demand of dowry and as such offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. On aforesaid two grounds, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order. Shri Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that in the complaint petition itself, there was specific allegation against accused persons including the petitioner that the daughter of complainant, who is wife of petitioner, was assaulted by the accused persons. Accused persons were pressuring the daughter of the complainant to transfer her entire property in the name of accused persons. He submits if there is material to show cruelty committed against a woman then offence under Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34883 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 4 / 7 4 [STATUTE] is made out. He has specifically referred to Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which is as follows : “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her 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. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34883 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 5 / 7 5 life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Classification of offence.- The offence under this section is cognizable if information relating to the commission of offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station by the aggrieved person or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if there is no such relative, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34883 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 6 / 7 6 or by any public servant belonging to such class or category as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf, non-bailable, non- compoundable and triable by Magistrate of the first class.” In reply, it was submitted by Shri Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint, it was alleged that the accused persons were pressuring the daughter of the complainant to execute sale deed. It was not a demand of any dowry. After going through the provisions under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, it appears that submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is completely misconceived and is liable to be rejected out rightly. So far as non taking cognizance under Section 498(A) of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34883 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 7 / 7 7 Indian Penal Code against other accused persons are concerned, on this very ground, petitioner cannot get any relief. It was up to the complainant to challenge the order of cognizance for not taking cognizance under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against other accused persons. Be that as it may, the case against the petitioner is specific and order of cognizance requires no interference. The petition stands dismissed. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.