IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50348 of 2007 1. SABYA DEVI, WIFE OF BINDESHWARI THAKUR @ BINO. 2. BINDESHWARI THAKUR @ BINO, SON OF LATE RAMBHUJ THAKUR. 3. ANIL THAKUR @ ANIL SHARMA, SON OF SRI BINDESHWARI THAKUR. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-SISHMA, P.S.-RAMGARH MORE, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI, AT PRESENT RESIDE AT MOHALLA-P.W.D./G.H.-16 RAILWAY COLONY, KHAGAUL, KIUL JN. , LAKHISARAI. ………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. USHA DEVI, WIFE OF ANIL THAKUR, D/O DAYA NAND THAKUR, VILLAGE-KEWTI, P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. -------------- O R D E R 3. 23.1.2009. The three persons who along with others were impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No.263(C) of 2006 but the only ones against whom cognizance has been taken by order dated 6.11.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura for offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have, through this application, prayed for the quashing of the same. According to the complainant, Usha Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, her marriage with petitioner no.3, the son of petitioner - 2 - nos.1 and 2 was solemnized in the year 2002. Two months after the marriage her in-laws started demanding dowry and used to assault her and also ousted her from the matrimonial home. The demand was for Rs.25,000/- in cash and a motorcycle which was objected to by her. A panchayat was convened by her father in his village but the result thereof had no effect on the accused who continued to torture her and reiterated the demand for dowry. Compelled thereby she filed Complaint Case No.74(C) of 2004 on 11.3.2004 in the Civil Court at Lakhisarai which eventually ended with a compromise. In the meanwhile, her husband contacted a second marriage with one Guriya Devi and when she objected to the same, she was abused, assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home whereupon she took resort with her father to whom she narrated her tales of woe. Another panchayati was held at the in-laws’ village and on the pressure of the villagers she was again taken back to the matrimonial home but soon thereafter her torture started. She was made to sleep on the floor and her demands for items of her need were met with abuse and assault. It is alleged that on 7.9.2006, her husband made an attempt to administer poison to her which she managed to avoid and for this she was assaulted by the husband and ousted from the home after all her articles had been confiscated by the accused. The submission by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a mechanical manner without considering the materials on record. In this connection, it was submitted that although the marriage actually took - 3 - place in the year 1994, as would be apparent from the marriage card(Annexure-3) and the voter’s list(Annexure-4) of 1998 wherein her name figures just below that of her husband, she had mentioned the year of her marriage in the first complaint as 2000 and in the instant complaint it was 2003, the learned Magistrate fails to take these into account. It is also submitted that even otherwise, no case under the Sections whereunder cognizance has been taken appear to have been made out from the recital in the complaint petition. Although O.P. No.2 put in an appearance in this case, neither she nor her accredited lawyer was present in court and hence there is no rebuttal to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Be that as it may, even if the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted at their face value, they in fact happen to be their defence. Moreover, these papers were not available before the learned Magistrate holding the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and even if they were made available they obviously could not be looked into. These points may however be agitated at the time of framing of charges. I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)