IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27990 of 2008 1. Kedar Nath Pandey, son of Late Badri Nath Pandey. 2. Kaushalya Devi alias Indu Devi, wife of Kedar Nath Pandey. 3. Prabhat Kumar Pandey alias Prakash Kumar Pandey, son of Kedarnath Pandey. 4. Shiv Shankar Pandey alias Shanker Pandey, son of Late Badri Nath Pandey. All residents of Village-Belehhi, P.O. Boli Belchhi, P.S. Chandi, District-Nalanda. ………………………………………………...Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sweta Kumari, wife of Prabhat Kumar Pandey, resident of Belehhi, Police Station-Chandi, District- Nalanda, at present Sweta Kumari, daughter of Shailendra Pandey, resident of Karia Wan, P.O. Bhathar, Police Station-Tharthari, District- Nalanda. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. M. Dayal, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None. ------------------------------ O R D E R 5. 23.12.2011. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 28.4.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, in Complaint Case No.644C of 2004, summoning the accused-petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. In brief, the facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2, Sweta Kumari, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.644C of 2004 against the petitioners and three others with the allegation that her marriage was performed on 22.4.2002, according to Hindu customs, with the accused-petitioner no.3, Prabhat Kumar Pandey alias Prakash Kumar Pandey and in the marriage her father had given ornaments, utensils and cash according to his capacity. After the marriage, she went to her sasural with her husband and after residing there for five days she returned to her Maika with her brother. Thereafter, on 14.2.2003, she went to her sasural in second marriage and stayed there for about 10-15 days properly. Thereafter, all the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, started to make demand of cash of Rs.31,000/- and a refrigerator, for which the opposite party no.2 was being tortured and assaulted. Her father-in-law, accused-petitioner no.1, Kedar Nath Pandey and mother-in-law, accused-petitioner 3 no.2, Kaushalya Devi alias Indu Devi, started to put pressure on her to ask her parents to give cash of Rs.31,000/- and a refrigerator giving threatening that otherwise she would be killed and the re-marriage of her husband would be performed. While she sent a letter to her parents for the fulfillment of demand, but she made protest regarding the same stating that the economical position of her parents is poor, on which she was being tortured through various modes and was driven out several times from the sasural house. The accused-petitioner no.4, Shiv Shankar Pandey alias Shankar Pandey, who is her cousin father-in-law, in course of making the demand tried to develop illicit relation with her. When she made complaint regarding the same, she was assaulted by other family members of her sasural and, lastly, on 10.4.2004, she was driven out from the sasural house. Thereafter, she gave information regarding the aforesaid occurrence of torture and harassment to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa, vide Information Letter No.205 of 2004 dated 12.4.2004 and, thereafter, she was brought by her parents and grand father at her sasural, who tried to convince her in-laws but all in vain. On 6.11.2004, due to harassment 4 and torture at the hands of the accused persons she came at her Maika and informed her father regarding her torture, who assured to convince her in-laws. Then, she went at her sasural again on the assurance of her husband, where her father, uncle and grand father rushed and tried to convince her in-laws but her in-laws started to assault her father and got his signature on the blank paper. At that time, the wrist watch of her father and cash Rs.400/- was also snatched by her in-laws. Later on, on 19.11.2004, she was driven out from sasural house by the accused persons snatching all her personal belongings. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, Sweta Kumari, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, on inquiry, summoned the accused-petitioners, out of the seven accused, named in the complaint petition, finding prima facie case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that the petitioners are father- in-law, mother-in-law, husband and cousin father-in-law respectively of the opposite party no.2. It has further been 5 submitted that it would appear from Annexure-‘6’ to this application, which is a report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Chandi Police Station on the application of the opposite party no.2, that the opposite party no.2 has not been tortured at the hands of the accused-petitioners to bring the cash of Rs.31,000/- and a refrigerator. As such, the impugned order is fit to be quashed in the ends of justice. It has also been urged that the opposite party no.2, only with a view to harass her in-laws and husband has filed this false complaint case and also the subsequent complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.564C of 2005, in which cognizance was also taken but the order of taking cognizance of the offence in the aforesaid case, with respect to the petitioner no.1, Kedar Nath Pandey, who is father-in-law of the opposite party no.2, was quashed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.10.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.17568 of 2006, which would appear from Annexue-‘8’ to this application. 4. On going through the impugned order dated 28.4.2005, it appears that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant-opposite 6 party no.2 and the statements of the five witnesses, as recorded in course of inquiry, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out only against the accused-petitioners and, accordingly, ordered to issue summon fixing the date for their appearance on 28.6.2005. Annexure-‘6’ to this application is the inquiry report dated 28.7.2004 submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, by the Sub Inspector of Chandi Police Station, with respect to the application filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, stating about false allegation against the accused- petitioners. Annexure-‘8’ to this application is the order dated 5.10.2007 passed by a Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No.17568 of 2006, whereby a Bench of this Court quashed the cognizance order dated 31.1.2005 passed in Complaint Case No.564C of 2005 filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 for the offence under Section 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, with respect to the petitioner no.1, Kedar Nath Pandey, who is father-in- law of opposite part no.2, stating that the opposite party no.2 has already filed the Complaint Case No.644C of 7 2004 against the accused-petitioners, which is still pending. The petitioners have filed this application to quash the summoning order passed in the aforesaid Complaint Case No.644C of 2004 before this Court, which is the present one. 5. At the time of taking of cognizance of the offence or summoning the accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, the court/Magistrate is not required to look into the defence of the accused. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 28.4.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, in Complaint Case No.644C of 2004, amounting to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)