IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35969 of 2008 1. Md. Mojibur Rahman @ Munna, son of Md. Safique. 2. Md. Safique, son of Late Md. Alamgir. 3. Md. Mohideur Rahman alias Md. Mohibul, son of Md. Safique. 4. Sadika Khatoon, wife of Md. Safique. All resident of village-Jahangirpur Salkhanni, Police Station- Mahua, District-Vaishali. ……………………………………………….............Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sultana Parveen, daughter of Gulam Mustafa, resident of village-Chaksiwarvara, Police Station-Patepur, District- Vaishali. ……………………………………………...Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Sandeep Kumar and Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates. ------------------------------------ O R D E R 6. 29.11.2011. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 20.11.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.2040 of 2006 by the Sub Divisiional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, summoning the five accused including the petitioners, out of the eight accused, named in the complaint petition, on inquiry, 2 finding prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts, leading to this application, are that the complainant-opposite party no.2, Sultana Parveen, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.2040 of 2006, with the allegation that her marriage was performed with the accused- petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman alias Munna, on 21.5.2005 according to Muslim Customs. On the occasion of her marriage, her parents and other family members had given ornaments, clothes, furnitures, utensils etc. worth Rs.2,00,000/- according to their capacity and she went to her Sasural in Bidai. After passing over some days, all the accused persons started torturing her for not giving the Colour Television and Ambassador Car in dowry and pressure was put on her to ask her parents to fulfill the said demand but she did not become ready showing the poor economical position at her Maika. Thereafter, all the accused persons including the petitioners started torturing her physically and mentally and also gave threatening to kill her by 3 administering poison. The accused-petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman @ Munna, also used to give threatening to divorce her. On 27.7.2005, she was taken by her brother at her Maika due to illness of her mother and on seeing her poor health, her parents and other family members asked the reason, then she narrated about the incident of demand of dowry and harassment for the same by the accused persons. The further case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is that her husband, accused-petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman alias Munna, used to visit at her Maika and in that course he made demand of Colour Television and Ambassador Car. In the meantime, the complainant-opposite party no.2, conceived pregnancy. On 21.12.2005, her husband, accused-petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman alias Munna, came alongwith four unknown criminals on Ambassador Car in a drunken state at her Maika and asked for her Bidai but her Maika people refused for her Bidai showing her poor health. Then her husband, accused-petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman @ Munna, became annoyed and returned and also lodged Patepur P.S. Case No.3 of 2006, on 22.12.2005 against 4 her brother and four others. On investigation, the said case was found to be false by the police and police submitted the report under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, on 25.8.2006, all the accused persons came at her Maika on Ambassador Car at about 9.00 P.M. and asked to take her at her matrimonial home but she and her mother refused to go there due to her advance stage of pregnancy on which all the accused became annoyed and her husband, accused-petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman @ Munna, forcibly laid her on the ground and with a view to get her pregnancy aborted started assaulting with his leg on her abdomen but anyhow, on raising hulla, on reaching the villagers and others, she was saved, but the accused persons took away her two briefcase containing clothes and ornaments worth Rs.25,000/-. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the complainant-opposite party no.2, on inquiry, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, through the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 summoned the five accused persons including the petitioners, out of the eight accused, named in the 5 complaint petition, finding prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioner nos.1 to 4 respectively are husband, father-in-law, dewar and mother-in-law of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and they have been falsely implicated in this case only to put undue pressure. In fact, petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman alias Munna, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.2, is driver and lives in Delhi to earn his livelihood by driving private vehicle at Delhi and unable to keep the complainant-opposite party no.2 with him at Delhi. The complainant-opposite party no.2 does not want to live at her matrimonial home and used to put pressure on her husband, accused- petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman @ Munna, to take her at working place and on refusal she several times went at her Maika. On approaching by her husband, accused-petitioner no.1, Md. Mojibur Rahman @ Munna, at her Maika to take the complainant-opposite party no.2 at her matrimonial home, he was badly 6 humiliated. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2, submitted that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, has rightly summoned the accused-petitioners and one Md. Asgar, out of the eight accused persons, named in the complaint petition, finding prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Moreover, after passing the impugned order to summon the accused-petitioners, statements of four witnesses, before framing of charge, have been recorded in which they have supported the prosecution case making the allegation against the accused-petitioners. 6. It appears from the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Complaint Case No.2040 of 2006 that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the statements of the witnesses have summoned only five accused 7 including the petitioners, out of the eight accused, named in the complaint petition, finding prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It also appears from the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party no.2 that four witnesses have been examined before framing of charge and specific allegation has been made against the accused-petitioners for demand of dowry and torturing the complainant-opposite party no.2. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Complaint Case No.2040 of 2006, amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)