IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.632 of 2008 RIDHI AGRAWAL, WIFE OF UTTAM AGRAWAL, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 47 CHANCHAND ZERO ROAD, ALLAHABAD. …………………………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ARUN AGRAWAL @ PAPPUJI AGRAWAL. 3. ADITYA AGRAWAL. BOTH SONS OF SRI SATISH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF 512 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHULPUR, ALLAHABAD, UTTAR PRADESH. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. N.A. Samshi and Rashid Rais, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, A.P.P. For O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate. ------------ O R D E R The complainant of Complaint Case No.1617 (C) of 2005 has preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No.150 of 2006 by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Bhojpur at Arrah, whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the revision preferred by the complainant for direction to the trial court to take cognizance against the petitioners as accused and also the order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the learned trial court in the said complaint case whereby the trial court had been pleased to direct the complainant to produce further evidence. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant in the complaint petition filed on 31.10.2005, is that she is the wife of one Uttam - 2 - Agrawal with whom she was married on 7.2.2005 after the negotiations therefor had taken place at her parental house at Arrah. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid on 4.2.2005 to the accused persons towards purchase of ornaments, clothes and gifts which was paid at Arrath and thereafter a demand for a Maruti car was made and after assurances were given of fulfilling the demand the marriage had been solemnized. It is further alleged that a few days after she entered the matrimonial home on 8.2.2005, the accused persons started demanding the vehicle and for non fulfillment thereof she was subjected to torture and abuse which eventually became a daily affair. It is further alleged that she saw her gotani, Ritu (accused no.4) and her husband (accused no.1) in objectionable position and had remonstrated about the same but it only resulted in the intensity of her torture increasing many fold. It is also alleged that when the accused persons came to know that her father had disposed of some lands they again started making demands for payment of Rs.5,00,000- 6,00,000/- for starting some business and purchase of the vehicle and she was pressurized to remind her parents of the demand on phone which she refused to obey and as a result thereof she was prevented from making any phone calls. It is said that she received information from her gotni that Saurabh, her son was born out of her illicit relationship with her husband and the fact was well known to the family members and that she should accept the reality. When she objected to such relationship she was locked inside the latrine for the whole day and night. It is also alleged that the demand for dowry kept - 3 - increasing and it reached such a height that it became virtually impossible for her to bear the torture and accordingly, she wrote a letter to her parents informing them to her tales of woe. She is also said to have told her in-laws that she should be sent back to her parental home since they did not want to maintain any relationship with her and were only interested in the money part. This only led to the accused persons confiscating all her belongings including ornaments worth Rs.2-3 lacs, clothes worth Rs.60,000/- and other items of gifts worth Rs.19,000/- and she was forced to leave the house on 5.10.2005 and Rs.200/- was given to her. It is also alleged that her father made several attempts to contact the in-laws over phone but there was no response. Her attempts to lodge a police case failed and they advised for filing a complaint. The complainant has also expressed her fear of being killed if she returns to her matrimonial home at Allahabad. After inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 10.3.2006 against Uttam Agrawal, his father, Satish Chandra Agrawal, his mother, Santosh Agrawal and Ritu Agrawal but no cognizance was taken against the remaining two accused, namely, Arun Agrawal and Aditya Agrawal, the husband of Ritu and his brother. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision No.78 of 2006 which was allowed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Bhojpur at Arrah vide order dated 28.4.2006 and the matter was remitted back to the court below - 4 - for further inquiry on an observation that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reason for not issuing process against the aforesaid two persons which he ought to have done. It further appears that on 8.5.2006 a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant for issuing summons to Arun Agrawal and Aditya Agrawal and by order dated 10.7.2006, the learned Magistrate observed that since the revisional court had already directed for holding further inquiry and, therefore, in pursuance of the order of the revisional court the complainant had already been directed to produce further evidence as such there was no necessity of issuing any summons to the aforesaid two persons and the complainant should produce further evidence in support of her case. Aggrieved by order dated 10.7.2006, the complainant again preferred Criminal Revision no.150 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Bhojpur at Arrah vide order dated 14.12.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the trial court took cognizance against 4 of the accused persons and failed to take cognizance against two others although the nature of allegations were the same and the matter was remitted back to the learned Magistrate by the revisional court for further inquiry there was no necessity of producing additional evidence and the trial court was only required to take cognizance. It was further submitted that even otherwise the order of the learned Magistrate to produce further evidence was misplaced and the revisional court had also misdirected itself by directing the trial court to hold further inquiry. - 5 - The learned counsel sought to place reliance in support of its case on the decision of Jugeshwar Choudhary Vs. A. Lakra, reported in 1966 BLJR 693 and decision of Brijnath Sahay Vs. Babulal, reported in 1956 BLJR 575. Both these decisions cited do not apply to the facts and the circumstances of the case. In the case of Jugeshwar Choudhary (Supra), the District Magistrate had ordered a judicial inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by an Additional District Magistrate who submitted a report in favour of the opposite party and the District Magistrate accepted the inquiry report and dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C. On revision being preferred the Additional Sessions Judge directed for further inquiry against some of the accused persons holding that there was no prima facie evidence to substantiate the questions of incidence which had occurred which warranted putting the accused persons on trial before a competent court and it was held by the High Court that such further inquiry was unnecessary and uncalled for. However, that is not the situation in the present case where cognizance has been taken against some of the accused and it was in that light that the revisional court had directed for further inquiry. This order was never sought to be challenged by the complainant before a superior forum and she subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and pleaded for summons to be issued. Therefore, when the Magistrate directed her to produce further evidence she could not take the plea that there was no necessity of further inquiry and it was in consideration thereof that the learned revisional court - 6 - had rightly dismissed Criminal Revision No.150 of 2006 preferred by her. There is another aspect of the matter. Criminal Revision No.150 of 2006 was filed against an interlocutory order and the revisional court though dismissing the revision for reasons stated therein should actually not have entertained the revision at all since it was preferred against an interlocutory order. Since the complainant had not challenged the order passed in the earlier revision, namely, Criminal Revision No.78 of 2006, it had become final and as ordered in the said revision the complainant was required to produce further evidence. In that view of the matter, I find no apparent illegality in the orders which are sought to be impugned in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as being without merit. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 20th day of August, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.