IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27304 of 2008 1. Sujata Bajpayee, wife of Shakti Bajpayee, resident of Mohalla-Baheliya Bigha, P.O. Tekari, P.S. Tekari, District-Gaya. 2. Sneha Mishra @ Kukoo, daughter of Surya Kumar Mishra, resident of Laluchak, P.O. Ishachak, District- Bhagalpur. 3. Surya Kumar Mishra, son of Late Hargovind Mishra, resident of Laluchak, P.O. Ishachak, District-Bhagalpur. 4. Priya Ranjan Mishra, son of Bariza Mishra, resident of Magager Automobile, Hero Honda, 56 Main Road. ………………………………………………......Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Pushapalata Kumari @ Asha, wife of Sarat Ranjan Mishra alias Babul, daughter of Sri Triveni Nath Awasthi, at present resident of Mohalla-Begampur Bahari, Police Station-Chauck, District-Patna. …………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : M/s. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & Sarita Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Anand Mohan and A.M.P. Mehta, Advocates. ---------------------------------- O R D E R 7. 29.11.2011. Through this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the order dated 8.6.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.503 of 2005 by the Sub 2 Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna, rejecting the application of the accused-petitioners filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge and also for quashing the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Patna, dismissing the Criminal Revision No.406 of 2007/182 of 2007, as preferred by the accused-petitioners against the aforesaid order dated 8.6.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.503 of 2005 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna. 2. In brief, the facts, leading to this application, are that the complainant-opposite party no.2, Pushpalata Kumari alias Asha, filed the complaint case, numbered as Complaint Case No.503 of 2005, alleging therein that her marriage was performed with the accused no.1, Sharat Ranjan Mishra alias Babul, on 3rd of July, 1998. At the time of marriage her parents had given several articles as gifts but the accused persons were not satisfied with the same and they made demand for valuable gifts but anyhow on the intervention of the people she was taken in Bidai. After passing over some times she was forced to bring cash and valuable articles from her Maika on which she showed 3 inability of her parents to fulfill the demand. Thereafter, the accused persons started torturing her physically and mentally. On 18.5.1999, the accused persons pushed her in a well but anyhow she was taken out from the well by the villagers. Thereafter, all the accused brought her at the Psychiatrist, Dr. Ajit Pandey, to get the certificate regarding her insanity but the doctor refused to issue the wrong certificate and, thereafter, she was sent at her Maika where her husband used to visit usually. In the year 2000, all the accused specially her husband and mother-in-law started to put pressure to bring her at Sasural but her father asked them to give assurance in writing to keep her properly but they refused and also gave threatening regarding which information was given in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.3.2000. Thereafter, the accused persons started spreading rumour that she could not become a mother and she was taken at several places for her check up and on 22.6.2002, she was taken at the clinic of Dr. Shobha Chakraborty at Ranchi, where after her check up doctor told on 4.7.2002 that she could conceive pregnancy. In the evening of that day, the accused-petitioner no.1, Sujata Bajpayee, abused her and 4 on protest her husband, accused no.1, Sharat Ranjan Mishra alias Babul, accused-petitioner no.2, Sneha Mishra alias Kukoo, and the accused-petitioner no.1, Sujata Bajpayee, started assaulting her through fists and slaps and the accused-petitioner no.1, Sujata Bajpayee, tried to press her neck. Later on, she was got checked up at the clinic of Dr. Jagdishwari Mishra, on 19.9.2002, who reported that the report of the Dr. Shobha Chakraborty of Ranchi, is false. Thereafter, she gave birth to a female child on 2.10.2003. In the meantime, on 24.8.2004, on the occasion of the birth of the daughter, Smt. Uma Mishra, her husband, Sharat Ranjan Mishra and the accused-petitioner no.1, Smt. Sujata Bajpayee, came at her Maika and she alongwith her daughter was taken to Baidyanath Dham and from there she was taken at her Sasural at Tekari, Gaya. On the occasion of the festival of Raksha Bandhan on 30.8.2004, she came at her Maika and after the festival of Raksha Bandhan, she made request to her husband to take her to Sasural but he did not pay any heed to her request. Her mother-in-law was murdered on 12.12.2004, whereas before one day her husband had asked her on telephone from Delhi to know where about her mother-in-law. 5 Thereafter, her brother went to Gurhatta Mohalla, Patna City, and informed to her husband that his mother is not there. On knowing about the murder of her mother-in-law, she alongwith her daughter and brother, Sanjay Kumar, went at her Sasural at Tekari, but her husband was not there. After the Shradh Ceremony of her mother-in-law, she was forcibly taken at her Maika on 6.1.2005 and her husband, who used to visit her Maika, asked her to give Rs.3,00,000/- on taking from her father to purchase the flat at Ranchi and to do business. When she refused, she was assaulted by her husband locking in a room through fists and slaps. Thereafter, on 16.6.2005, her husband alongwith one unknown person came at her Maika and gave threatening that unless Rs.3,00,000/- to purchase the flat and to do the business at Ranchi is paid, he would not bring her back at Sasural and he will perform his remarriage. 3. On filing of the complaint petition by the complainant-opposite party no.2, Pushapalat Kumari alias Asha, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna, on inquiry, summoned the accused including the petitioners finding prima facie case under Sections 323, 6 504 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 26.9.2005. Thereafter, the accused- petitioners challenged the aforesaid order before this Court through Criminal Misc. No.17715 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2007. The accused-petitioners also approached the Hon’ble Apex Court against the said order vide SLP (Criminal) No.1492 of 2007, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.3.2007. Thereafter, the accused-petitioners filed the petition under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge after recording the evidence of the witnesses before charge which was dismissed by the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna vide order dated 8.6.2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the accused-petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No.406 of 2007/182 of 2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.2.2008 by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Patna, affirming the order dated 8.6.2007 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna with finding that there is sufficient material against the accused- petitioners to frame the charge under Sections 323, 504 and 7 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1, Sujata Bajpayee, is the married nanad, petitioner no.2, Sneha Mishra @ Kukoo, is the daughter of elder nanad, petitioner no.3, Surya Kumar Mishra, is the brother-in-law (nandosi) and petitioner no.4, Priya Ranjan Mishra, is the cousin father-in-law of the complainant opposite party no.2 and the complaint petition has been filed by the complainant- opposite party no.2 with oblique motive only to harass them. In fact, nothing specific has been stated by the witnesses in their evidence as recorded before the charge. As such, the order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna, refusing the prayer of the accused-petitioners to discharge them and also the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Patna, in Criminal Revision No.406 of 2007/182 of 2007 preferred by the accused-petitioners against the aforesaid order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the 8 petitioners in support of his submission placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another {(2010)7 Supreme Court Cases 667). 5. Admittedly, the summoning order dated 26.9.2005 passed under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal procedure to accused including the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has been upheld by a Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No.17715 of 2006 vide order dated 15.1.2007 and the SLP (Criminal) No.1492 of 2007, as preferred against that order of this Court by the accused-petitioners in the Hon’ble Apex Court, has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.3.2007. 6. It appears from the depositions of the witnesses as contained in Annexure-‘6’ to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that specially the complainant-opposite party no.2, Pushpalata Kumari, her brother, Sanjay Kumar Awasthi and father, Triveni Nath Awasthi, have stated about the participation of the accused- petitioners in torturing and harassing the complainant- 9 opposite party no.2. This fact has already been discussed in the impugned order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna and also in the order dated 14.2.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No.406 of 2007/182 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Patna. At the time of framing of the charge, the trial court/Magistrate is not required to evaluate the statement/evidence of the witnesses meticulously like in trial, the court/Magistrate is only required to see whether prima facie the case for framing of charge is made out or not. 7. In the case of Preeti Gupta (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including the Supreme Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of society. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper 10 deliberations. It is seen that a large number of such complaints are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. It has also been held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in a majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The aforesaid case will not be applicable in the facts and the circumstances of the present case as in the present case, the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the petitioners has already been upheld by this Court and the SLP (Criminal) No.1492 of 2007 filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners as against the said order in the Hon’ble 11 Apex Court was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.3.2007. The Magistrate vide order dated 8.6.2007 rejected the application of accused-petitioners filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after recording the evidence of witnesses before charge arriving at finding that there is sufficient evidence on record to frame the charge against accused-petitioners under Sections 323, 504 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, I find no illegality in the order dated 8.6.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.503 of 2005 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna and the order dated 14.2.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No.406 of 2007/182 of 2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Patna to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)