IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14866 of 2006 PUNAM DEVI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & anr ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate For the O.P.no.2 : Mr Krishna Mohan, Advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate -------- 11. 19.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner no. 1 is the wife of opposite party no. 2 and other petitioners are her family members questioning the order of cognizance dated 17.2.2006 under Section 380 of the Penal Code in Naugachia PS Case No. 232/2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 560/2005 by the ACJM Naugachia. Complaint Case No. 278/2005 came to be lodged by Opposite party no. 2 on 1.8.2005. It states that he was unemployed at the time of marriage and totally dependent on his father who was a teacher. The marriage was solemnized without any dowry. The petitioner no. 1 did not allow him to consummate the marriage. She admonished him for still being student and unemployed. He became perturbed and pushed her when she kicked him and he fell down. He left the house next day and when he came back he found that the petitioner no. 1 had admonished mother of opposite party no. 2 when the latter questioned her why she was not looking after her husband. She then admonished him to show that if he be the husband let him arrange Rs. Two lacs for her as her father had seen a house at Purnea and she was desirous of purchasing the same. When the opposite party no. 2 expressed helplessness petitioner no. 1 was angered. The petitioner no. 1 then left for her parental home and refused to come back despite the request of opposite party no. 2.Subsequently she came back, but this time left with jewelry in a suit case. Despite his request, she did not come back to the matrimonial home. Para 15 of the complaint makes it apparent that the jewelry which the petitioner no. 1 took was her jewelry given to her in the marriage.. This complaint case was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. registered as a police case on 1.9.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 filed Complaint Case No. 1173/2005 on 29.6.2005 prior to the institution of the complaint case by opposite party no. 2 in which cognizance has been taken after it was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that the present case was filed only to wreak vengeance. The Police after investigation submitted final report that the allegations in Naugachia PS Case No. 323/2005 were not correct. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance differing with the Police report, this Court at this stage should refrain from exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as all evidence could adequately be taken into trial. Two facts emerge from, the aforesaid discussions. The petitioner no. 1 filed an earlier prosecution under Sections 498A and other provisions of the Penal Code. This was followed by a complaint case by the opposite party no. 2. Both have been sent for police investigation. The case filed by the opposite party no. 2 was found untrue during investigation. This Court on reading of the original complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 running into 15 pages is satisfied that it is the product of a well planned and thought out allegation rather than spontaneous rendering of what may have transpired on a particular day and event. It is almost as if the opposite party no. 2 did not wish to leave any loop hole to hedge his wife and her family members from all sides. Reading the complaint as it is what virtually transpires is that in the matrimonial dispute the petitioner no. 1 left the matrimonial home with her own jewelry in a suit case. Whether it be her own jewelry given to her by her parents or given to her by her in-laws she cannot be an accused of stealing her own jewelry. Section 380 of the Penal Code has therefore no application. Entire prosecution of the petitioners in Naugachia PS Case No. 232/2005 is therefore quashed. This application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)