IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46747 of 2007 1. Suresh Prasad @ Suresh Kumar Gupta son of late Hira Lal Gupta. 2. Asha Devi wife of Suresh Prasad. Both resident of Mohalla- Bakarganj, Police Station-Pirbahore, District- Patna. -----Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Rakhi Kumari wife of Mister Lal @ Mantu, resident of Ghee Patti, Ward No.8, Bairganiya, Police Station-Bairganiya, District- Sitamarhi, presently residing at Pachkauri Sao Lane, West Lohanipur, Police Station- Kadamkuan, District- Patna. ----Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 23.01.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the opposite party no.2. The petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance dated 30.07.2007 as also the entire proceeding in Complaint Case no. 1699 C of 2007 under Sections 420 and 498A of the Penal Code pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna. The allegations in the complaint insofar as the present petitioners are concerned are that they are the cousin father-in-law and cousin mother-in-law of the complainant. The petitioner no.2 is the own sister of the mother of the husband of the complainant. Paragraph No.3 of the complaint alleges that they negotiated the marriage and on their persuasion the marriage was solemnized with the husband accused no.1. The body of the complaint then makes allegations against the accused nos. 1 and 2. and other accused. It makes no reference to the present petitioners, when at paragraph No.14 it is stated that the father of the complainant contacted the petitioners who advised them - 2 - to consider the demand being made by other co-accused. At paragraph No.15, it is alleged that the petitioners refused to intervene and settle the matter and exhorted the other accused to demand dowry. Likewise paragraph no.22 of the complaint alleges that it was through the present petitioners that the complainant learnt that her father-in-law was negotiating a second marriage of her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that reading the allegations as it is, there are no allegations against the present petitioners fit to summon them for trial. They have been implicated only because of the fact that they were instrumental in the negotiations for the marriage. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 urged that not only the petitioners were instrumental in negotiating the marriage, they pursued for the dowry demands thereafter also. This Court, on reading the complaint as it is, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, finds that they are alleged to be the persons who negotiated and settled the marriage. Thereafter, they only counselled the parents of the complainant to pay up the dowry demand. It does not allege that they made demand. This court, therefore, finds it difficult to accept the submission of the opposite party no.2 that they were instrumental in the demand of dowry. Likewise paragraph no.15 only alleges that they refused to interfere and settle the matter but told the other accused that the - 3 - parents of the complainant were able to pay the dowry. Again there was no demand made by them or an act directly attributing to harassment. Likewise paragraph no.22 only alleges that they were the source of information by which the complainant came to know that her father-in-law and her husband were negotiating a second marriage of the latter. This and no more is the allegation. This court on consideration of the aforesaid discussions is satisfied that the petitioners have been made an accused in the present complaint case only for the reason that they happen to be the relatives of the husband with the additional fact that they negotiated and helped solemnize the marriage. No demands for dowry and harassment for the same is attributed against them. This Court, therefore, on consideration of the allegations against the present petitioners does not find any material so as to invoke provisions of Section 420 of the Penal Code against them. This court finds it difficult to arrive at a conclusion that there has been any act of cheating on their part resulting in giving benefit to another. The petitioners do not stand to benefit anything from the marriage. Even as per the allegations they did not pursue the complainant or her father to part with or deliver any property and valuable sureties. Insofar as Section 498 A of the Penal Code is concerned, this had already held that there are no allegations against the present petitioners of any harassment or torture so as to attract the - 4 - aforesaid provision. The proceedings against the present petitioners only in Complaint Case no. 1699C of 2007 including the order of cognizance dated 30.7.2007 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna, is quashed. This application is allowed with regard to the present two petitioners alone. U.K. (Navin Sinha,)