IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13003 of 2008 1. Rajesh Kishore @ Mukesh, son of Brajesh Kishore Prasad, Resident of B-402, Triveni Apartment, Hinu Airport Road, Police Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand), At present C/o Fortune Company, Mandru Ratu Road, Police Station-Sukhdeo Nagar. 2. Braj Kishore Prasad, son of Late Ayodhya Prasad. 3. Sarda Sinha, wife of Braj Kishore Prasad. Both resident of Goshala Road, Police Station-Khagaria, District-Khagaria. ………………………………………………...Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Neha Sarika alias Nikki, daughter of Bijay Kumar Sinha, resident of Mirjapur, Police Station-Kashim Bazar, District-Munger (Bihar). ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, Anil Kumar Singh and Samir Kumar Bharti, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Adiya Prakash Sahay and Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocates. --------------------------------- O R D E R 11. 14.10.2011 The petitioners by filing this application have invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. of Kashim Bazar P.S. Case No.108 of 2007 lodged on behalf of the complainant-informant- 2 opposite party no.2, Smt. Neha Sarika alias Nikki and also the cognizance order dated 16.6.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in connection with the aforesaid case. 2. Earlier, this application was filed on behalf of all the seven accused, namely, (1) Rajesh Kishore alias Mukesh, (2) Braj Kishore Prasad, (3) Smt. Sarda Sinha, (4) Sanjay Kumar Sinha (5) Smt. Bibha Sinha (6) Rakesh Kishore and (7) Smt. Sushma, but vide order dated 1.2.2010, the prayer of the accused-petitioner no.4,Smt. Bibha Sinha alias Bibha Rani, accused-petitioner no.5, Smt. Sushma alias Sushma Kishore, accused-petitioner no.6, Sanjay Kumar Sinha alias Sanjay Kumar and accused- petitioner no.7, Rakesh Kishore, to withdraw this application on their behalf has been allowed. Thus, now, only the three accused, namely, petitioner no.1 Rajesh Kishore alias Mukesh, petitioner no.2, Braj Kishore Prasad and petitioner no.3. Sarda Sinha, are the petitioners in this application. 3. In brief, the facts leading to this application is that the complainant-informant-opposite party no.2, Smt. Neha Sarika alias Nikki, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.740(C) of 2007 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, which was forwarded under 3 Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Kashim Bazar Police Station for investigation and submitting the report. Accordingly, Kashim Bazar P.S. Case No.108 of 2007 was instituted on 3.8.2007 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the seven accused persons, named in the complaint petition. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that the marriage of the complainant-informant-opposite party no.2, Smt. Neha Sarika alias Nikki, was performed at Patna on 20.4.2006 according to Hindu Customs with accused- petitioner no.1, Rajesh Kishore alias Mukesh on the proposal of his father, accused-petitioner no.2, namely, Braj Kishore Prasad. In the marriage, the father of the complainant- informant-opposite party no.2 spent huge money for gifts. The barat party had come to Patna from the house of the accused no.4, Sanjay Kumar Sinha and returned to Ranchi. The complainant-informant-opposite party no.2 resided about 20 days in Triveni Apartment and, thereafter, on 11.5.2006, she came to her father’s house. About 2-4 days after the marriage the behaviour of the accused-petitioner no.1, Rajesh Kishore alias Mukesh with her was cordial but, thereafter, the accused nos.4 to 7 started hatching conspiracy against her as 4 accused nos.6 and 7, namely, Rakesh Kishore and Smt. Sushma, used to visit at the house of the accused no.4, Sanjay Kumar Sinha. Accused nos.4 to 7 also used to make comment on her physique and also for not providing the proper cash and a vehicle by her father. It is also alleged that the accused- petitioner no.1, had more affection with his bhabhi, accused no.7, Smt. Sushma and he used to obey her direction. In the preceding year, on the occasion of Durga Puja, when the complainant-informant-opposite party no.2 had come to Khagaria, her husband, accused-petitioner no.1, Rajesh Kishore alias Mukesh, had also come there, where her husband and her in-laws put pressure on her to ask her father to give Rs.1,00,000/- and a car and when she replied them that her father is not in a position to give the same, accused- petitioner no.3, her mother-in-law, Sarda Sinha, abused her and her husband showed her annoyance and returned to Ranchi. On the occasion of Chhath festival, on 27th of October, 2006, accused no.1 and 4 to 7 had come to her sasural house Khagaria and at that time, the complainant- opposite party no.2 was at her Sasural at Khagaria but her husband, accused-petitioner no.1 did not use to talk her on the instigation of his bhabhi, accused no.7, Smt. Sushma and, 5 ultimately, her husband, returned to Ranchi. In the year 2006, she went to her Maika at Munger for appearing in the B.A. Examination, where she felt insecure due to conspiracy hatched by the accused persons and gave informatory petition in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger. When the complainant-informant-opposite party no.2 was at Khagaria, she was tortured through various modes at the hands of the accused persons for demand of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and a car. The complainant-informant-opposite party no.2 also used to send a letter to her mother regarding her torture by the accused persons. The further case of the complainant- informant-opposite party no.2 is that on 20.5.2007, when her husband again made demand of cash and a vehicle and she made protest, her husband assaulted her. When her father visited at Khagaria and Ranchi to meet her, her father was also abused and threatened for not giving the cash and vehicle. After marriage, her husband had come only one time from Ranchi to her Maika at Munger and at that time her father was not there but in spite of that, her husband had also made demand from her mother. When her mother showed her inability to fulfill the same, he became annoyed and returned to Khagaria. On 4.7.2007, she was taken by her husband at 6 Bhagalpur but her husband went from there leaving her there and, ultimately, she went at the residence of her father at Bhagalpur as her father was an employee of P.W.D. at Bhagalpur and narrated all the incidents. Thereafter, her father alongwith her went to Ranchi at the residence of her husband but her husband was not there. Then, her father returned to Munger alongwith her. Her husband-accused petitioner no.1 also used to give threatening on phone to ruin her and, ultimately, finding no option, she filed Maintenance Case in the Family Court at Munger. 4. After submitting the chargesheet on investigation by the police, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, through the impugned order dated 16.6.2009 took the cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused-petitioners , namely, Rajesh Kishore alias Mukesh, Braj Kishore Prasad and Sarda Sinha and accepted the final form as submitted in respect to the accused, Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Smt. Bibha Sinha, Rakesh Kishore and Smt. Sushma, showing them innocent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in- 7 law of the complainant-informant-opposite party no.2. The petitioner no.1, the husband of the complainant-informant- opposite party no.2 has filed a Matrimonial Suit No.126 of 2007 in the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ranchi and the opposite party no.2 has also filed the Maintenance Case No.49M of 2007 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Munger against her husband, petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.1 is paying Rs.1400/- and Rs.200/- to the opposite party no.2 as per the order dated 18.12.2007 by way of maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that taking of cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioners, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, is clear cut abuse of the process of the court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioners in the complaint petition filed by the opposite party no.2, which is the basis of the F.I.R. of Kashim Bazar P.S. Case No.108 of 2007, that they used to torture opposite party no.2 through various modes for demand of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and a car. 8 Learned A.P.P. for the State also supported the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and submits that the opposite party no.2 in her re- statement, as recorded in paragraph-3 of the case diary, and her father, Bijay Kumar Sinha, in his statement in paragraph-5 of the case diary, have supported the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint petition. 6. It appears from the complaint petition, which is the basis of the F.I.R. of Kashim Bazar P.S. Case No.108 of 2007, that there is specific allegation against the petitioners in paragraph 7 to torture the opposite party no.2 for demand of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and a car. The opposite party no.2 has also specifically stated in her re-statement in paragraph-3 of the case diary that she was tortured by the petitioners for non fulfillment of the aforesaid demand and in paragraph-5 of the case diary, the father of the opposite party no.2, Bijay Kumar Sinha, has also supported the allegation against the petitioners of torturing the opposite party no.2. 7. The impugned order dated 16.6.2009 also shows that on perusal of chargesheet and case diary, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, has taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code 9 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and also stopped the further proceedings against the remaining four accused, named in the complaint petition, against whom the police has submitted final form showing them innocent. 8. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, there is nothing in the impugned order to show the abuse of the process of the court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)