IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38046 of 2006 1. LALWARTI SINGH , S/o Late Vikrama Singh 2. Girija Devi, W/o Lalwarti Singh 3. Baby Devi, D/o Lalwarti Singh 4. Mini Devi, D/o Lalwarti Singh, All residents of village – Amaon, P.S. Chainpur, District Kaimur (Bhabua) …… Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ravita Devi, W/o Late Krishna Kumar Singh, R/o village Amaon, P.S. Chainpur, District Kaimur (Bhabua), District Kaimur … Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : M/s Rajesh Kr. Mishra & Saurendra Pandey, Advocates. ----------- O R D E R The petitioners who are in-laws of the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2005 and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 28.2.2005 passed therein by Sri S.B.N. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhabua, whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under section 498A IPC against the petitioners. According to the complainant her marriage with the son of petitioner no. 1 was solemnized on 24.5.2001 whereat gifts including clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 2 lacs were given. It is stated that she remained at the matrimonial home for 4 months during which she was treated with dignity and cordiality. It is alleged that on her return to the parental home thereafter her father-in-law started demanding a “Bullet” motorcycle and also 2 threatened that in the event of the demand not being fulfilled he would marry off his son elsewhere. Efforts by the brother and the complainant’s witnesses to reason with the accused proved ineffective and eventually a Suzuki motorcycle was given and it was only thereafter that the gauna was performed. At the time of gauna her mother – in – law is alleged to have demanded the further presentation of bedding, furniture, almirah and she was threatened with ouster in the event of non fulfillment, and she was taunted by her nanads and her brother was requested by her in – laws to take her away and when he refused to comply she was abused and assaulted and eventually she was sent to her paternal home in the company of her husband with a threat that she would not be accepted in the matrimonial home till the demand was met. It is stated that in the meantime her husband was murdered and she returned to her matrimonial home to attend to the last rites and sharadh and soon thereafter the in-laws reverted back to their old habits and also taunted her by calling her a witch, incapable of conceiving and ungrateful and suggestions were given to her to end her life by taking poison. She was also subjected to torture and cruelty in various manner and was often locked in a room, as a result whereof she fell ill and on the pretext of taking her for treatment she was brought by her father-in-law to Bhabua and unceremoniously dumped at her brother’s place. The accused are also alleged to have confiscated all her stridhan. It is further alleged that all the accused persons are ready to kill her so that 3 she is not given any share in the husband’s property. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they being the parents-in-law and married nanads of the complainant have been falsely implicated in this case only to oppress them. Allegation of dowry demand to have been made by them is sought to be denied. It has also been submitted that the story propounded in the complaint petition can be divided into two parts: one, that during the life time of the husband and the other thereafter and in both situations the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It has also been submitted that the false and vexatious case has been filed only to pressurise the petitioners to part with 50% share in the joint family property in her favour. It would also appear that there is no allegation of any torture by the petitioners after the death of her husband and the instant case came to be lodged to put pressure on the petitioners in respect of Partition Suit No. 257 of 2005 preferred by her. Through a supplementary affidavit it was sought to be brought to the notice of the court that subsequent cases had also been filed against the petitioners and the learned cognizance taking court had failed to take into consideration these material facts. Admittedly the case proceeded on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant, Revati Devi. The Magistrate took cognizance after holding an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. At an inquiry , admittedly, the very question for consideration is whether the accused should be called upon to face an accusation . 4 The object behind such inquiries is to enable the court to scrutinize carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. Since the object of an inquiry is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded by him and he is not entitled to look into any other material besides this and where there is prima facie evidence issuance of process cannot be refused. It appears from the impugned order of the Magistrate that he had considered the materials on record and had come to the conclusion that a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused had been made out. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners unfortunately relates to their defence and such defence cannot be looked into in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. That being the position I find no apparent illegality or impropriety on the part of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance. Accordingly the application is dismissed. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise the issues raised herein at the time of framing of charges. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 10th of April, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)