IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.36064 of 2007 1. YOGENDRA RAUT son of late Kishun Raut. 2. Reena Devi wife of Surendra Raut 3. Runa Devi wife of Yogendra Raut, All resident of village Gudhaur, P.S. Gidhaur, District Jamui. 4. Ramesh Prasad Raut son of Ramchandra Raut, resident of village Barh P.S. Barh Dist.- Patna. 5. Birendra Raut son of Kartik Raut 6. Gaya Devi wife of Kartik Raut Both resident of village Khaira P.S. Khaira, District Jamui. 7. Dhaneshwar Sah son of late Kalar Sah 8. Surendra Raut son of late Kishun Raut 9. Pawan Raut son of late Kishun Raut Both resident of Patsanda Gidhur, P.S. Gidhaur, District Jamui. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mamta Devi wife of Pawan Kumar resident of village Gidhaur P.S. Gidhaur, District Jamui. . . . . . Complainant / Opp. Parties. For the Petitioners: Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M.K. Pandey, Advocate, For the State: Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. For Opposite Pary no.2: Mr. Ashok Jang Bahadur, Advocate. ----------- 4/ 19.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Opposite Party no.2, namely, Mamta Devi, lodged a case against her husband and others giving rise to Gidhaur P.S. case no. 59 of 2006 under Sections 498 A, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In her prosecution case, she alleged that the accused persons tortured her. The police after investigation submitted Final Form in favour of other accused persons except the husband, who happens to be the petitioner no.9. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against all the nine accused persons is false and fabricated. He further submits that the police in course of investigation also found the prosecution to be - 2 - true only against petitioner no.9, who happens to be the husband of the complainant. He submits that petitioner no. 4 Ramesh Prasad Raut, who is maternal uncle of petitioner no.3 Runa Devi, who happens to be the sister-in-law of the victim. He further submits that petitioner no.5 Birendra Raut happens to be the maternal brother of the husband of the victim and petitioner no.6 Gaya Devi is the mother of petitioner no.5. He further submits that petitioner no.7 is a villager and has no concern with the affairs of the family. He submits that all of them are related to Pawan Kumar, husband of the victim, they all have been implicated in this case. Mr. Ashok Jang Bahadur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that there is allegation against all the accused persons. However, he does not deny that the police in course of investigation submitted Final Form in favour of petitioner nos.1 to 8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the occurrence took place in village Patsanda Gidhaur in the District of Jamui whereas petitioner no. 4 is resident of village Barh, which is situated about 60 K.M. away from the place of occurrence and further more, petitioner no. 5 Birendra Raut and his mother Gaya Devi (petitioner no.6), they are not immediate family members of the informant’s husband but rather they happened to be the maternal brother. Further more, they also stayed in different blocks. Thus, I find that petitioner nos. 4, 5 and 6 are not the immediate family members of the informant’s husband and stayed quite far away. The police in - 3 - course of investigation has also not found their involvement in the alleged offence, as such on the aforesaid grounds, I quash the impugned order of the Magistrate summoning these petitioners to face trial. Further more, petitioner no.7, Dhaneshwar Sah, is a villager and not related to the family of the informant’s husband. A villager generally does not have much concern with internal affairs of others family. Further more, a villager, who is not an immediate relative of the husband of the victim, would also not be covered under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498 A Indian Penal Code would applicable to the husband or relative of the husband or woman. On the aforesaid ground the criminal prosecution against petitioner no. 7 is also unsustainable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and as such the order taking cognizance and summoning him to face trial is quashed. However, the prosecution will continue against the rest of the petitioners namely petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)