IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51423 of 2007 1. SATISH CHANDRA MISHRA, S/o Late Bucchi Mishra 2. Madhuri Mishra, W/o Satsh Chandra Mishra 3. Anil Kumar @ Suma, S/o Satish Chandra Mishra All residents of village – Ghoghardiha, P.S. Ghoghardiha, District – Madhubani …. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Pushpa Mishra, W/o Shekhar Chandra Mishra, D/o Indra Narayan Jha, R/o village Dyoudh, P.S. Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani …. Opp. Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : None ------- 3 3.2.2009 The three petitioners who along with others were arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 465 of 2006 which on being sent to the concerned P.S. was registered as Bhadurpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2006 have prayed for quashing of the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, whereby he has taken cognizance under section 498A IPC and section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. From the fardbeyan it appears that the marriage of the informant, Pushpa Mishra, with accused no. 3, Shekhar Chandra Mishra, was solemnized on 11.6.2004 whereat costly - 2 - items of gift worth Rs. 3 lacs was given in dowry and gifts. Notwithstanding the payment of such gifts the informant was not taken to the matrimonial home and during this interregnum the husband kept visiting his wife in her parental home and eventually in the year 2006 the visit of the husband to the parental home stopped altogether. Efforts to contact the accused persons and enquiry about them revealed that the accused were greedy persons who not being satisfied with the gifts given by the father of the informant 5 lacs rupees as additional dowry was demanded failing which the husband would be married else where. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners who live separate from the husband of the informant cannot be fastened with the liability of the offence under section 498A IPC and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in view of the fact that no cruelty had been committed by any of them. The expression “cruelty” has been defined in the explanation to section 498A IPC and Clause (b) thereof brings within its ambit any harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of the failure by her or any - 3 - proceeding related to her to meet such demand and would include within its fold, the husband or the relative of the husband as offenders. In the instant case after the marriage had been performed the informant was left in her paternal home and never taken to matrimonial home and the husband paid occasional visits to meet the wife in the paternal home with the wife. To leave a married woman in her paternal home and not to take her to the matrimonial home and also to make a demand of Rs. 5 lacs as additional dowry is in my opinion sufficient to cover the expression “cruelty” since the wife in her paternal home not only suffers mental agony of not being taken to the matrimonial home and also social ostracism which results from the talk of bragging tongues of the elder people of the locality / society with surrounds her paternal home. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to paragraph 7 of the petition that these three petitioners live separate from the husband. There is nothing on record to show that these petitioners live separate from the husband and the informant and on the other hand being the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the informant, it was their duty to see that they having performed the marriage of their son with the informant, to bring within - 4 - the fold of the matrimonial home the newly wedded wife of their son. That not having been done they are equally responsible for committing the offence of cruelty on the informant. In view of the discussions made above I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)