IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24014 of 2007 1. Rameshwar Lal Karn, Son of Late Surya Narain Lal Das. 2. Kiran Devi W/o Sri Rameshwar Lal Karn. Both residents of Kharajpur Barhetta, P.S. Laherisarai, District Darbhanga at present residing at Mohalla- Shashtrinagar, C/o Vinay Shankar Srivastava, Harikung, Near Janki Mandir, P.S. Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Mamta Kumari, W/o Ravi Ranjan Kr. at present Mohalla-Shashtri Nagar, P.S. Mithanpura, Dist. Muzaffarpur. D/o Ram Chandra Karn, Vill. Pahsaul, P.S. Katra, Dist. Muzaffarpur. ---------- Opposite Parties. with Cr.Misc. No.16272 of 2009 1. Suman Kumar, Son of Late Ram Narayan Lal Das. 2. Prakash Ranjan @ Guddu, Son of Rameshwar Lal Karn. Resident of Village-Kharajpur Barhetta, P.S. Laheriasarai, District-Darbghanga, both at present residing at Mohalla- Shashtri Nagar, C/o Vinay Shankar Srivastava, “Harikunj”, near Janki Mandir, P.S. Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Mamta Kumari, W/o Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Daughter of Ram Chandra Prasad Karn, at present residing at Village-Pahsaul, P.S. Katra, District-Muzaffarpur. ---------- Opposite Parties ----------- 5 30.7.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer in these two applications is for quashing of an order taking cognizance dated 12.5.2004 for an offence under Section 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Tr. No. 2015 of 2004 arising out of Complaint Case No. 388 of 2004 and summoning the petitioners to face trial. The petitioners in the first case are 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law while in the second case, they are two brothers-in-law (Dewar). In the complaint petition, which was filed by the opposite party no.2, there is a categorical statement of the complainant that even after paying a sum of rupees two lacs in cash and gift items worth rupees three lacs, there was a demand from the father of the complainant for two kathas of land in Muzaffarpur town or rupees five lacs in cash and when the same was not fulfilled, the complainant was physically assaulted and mentally tortured by all the accused persons including her husband as also her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law. It has been further alleged that such torture and physical assault continued for a long period of time and ultimately the opposite party no.2 was driven out of the house by her husband and other family members with a clear demand that unless a sum of rupees five lacs was paid or two kathas of land in Muzaffarpur town was conveyed to the family of her husband, she would not be taken back in her matrimonial home. Such allegation against the petitioners was further supported by the complainant opposite party no.2 in course of solemn 3 affirmation and in enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. of three witnesses, namely, Ramchandra Prasad Karn, Narendra Prasad Manoj and Dharendra Kumar. The court below, in fact, having considered all these materials had passed the impugned order taking cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners and others to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has submitted that there was no specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioners and that in similar circumstances, prosecution of three co-accused, namely, Ranjit Srivastava (nandosi being husband of husband’s sister) Kanchan @ Rubi (nanad being sister of the husband) and Kanak @ Rinki (another unmarried sister of the husband) have been quashed by this Court by an order dated 29th August, 2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 24954 of 2007 only on the ground that the allegations attributed against them in the complaint petition were of general and omnibus in nature. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 had referred to not only the statement in the petition of complaint but had also referred to the materials gathered in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the 4 Cr.P.C. to suggest that the demand of dowry was made by the father-in-law and mother-in-law and on refusal to pay the victim lady was assaulted by her husband and brother-in-law at Thane from where she was driven away by all of them. This Court, having given anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions, would find that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court below had to literally proceed on the basis of allegation made in the complaint petition or the materials collected in course of proceeding under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. In such a situation, it cannot be said that when the allegation of demand of dowry was said to be made both at Muzaffapur as also at Thane by these petitioners along with the husband, no prima-facie case under Section 498A had been made out against them. It has to be kept in mind that there is also specific allegation of physical assault on the person of the opposite party no.2 by the husband as also Suman Kumar (petitioner no.1 of Cr. Misc. No. 16272 of 2009) at Thane where the opposite party no.2 was said to be taken before being thrown out from the house for not fulfilling the demand of dowry by way of rupees five lacs or a piece of land at Muzaffarpur. 5 The case of the married sister of the husband of opposite party no.2 or the husband of such married sister would therefore definitely stand on a different footing and simply because this Court has quashed their prosecution of the aforementioned three accused persons, that could not give reprieve to the petitioners who as stated above who are father-in-law, mother-in- law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second criminal case filed by the opposite party no.2 leading to Muzaffarpur P.S. Case No. 123 of 2005 dated 2.9.2005 should be taken to be the proof of the litigating and quarrellsome nature of the opposite party no.2 habituated in indulging of filing of false cases is also does not appeal to this Court, inasmuch as, what had happened after the alleged bid of compromise between the husband of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 herself cannot be a ground for quashing of a prosecution under Section 498A of the Cr.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is just possible that the accused husband of the opposite party no.2 had ultimately realized his mistake and therefore, 6 had made an attempt to patch up the matter by taking the opposite party no.2 back to his house but the situation did not improve due to opposite party no.2 trying to misbehave with her husband and the family members. The possibility however cannot be ruled out that the opposite party no.2 again been shabillity treated in the hands of the petitioner and her husband which led to a separate institution of another substantive police case for the episodes taking place after the lodging of the first complaint case on 27.2.2004 and before filing of the police case on 2.9.2005. In any event, Annexure- 2 being the subsequent First Information Report of a police case against the accused persons including the petitioners and husband of the opposite party no.2 can be used by way of their a defence version, only in course of trial. For the present, this Court can only record that it is the petitioners and the husband of the opposite party no.2 who have always been the dingling carrots towards the opposite party no.2 as and when they are in trouble in respect of pending criminal cases against them. Earlier on 23.7.2009 when this court had heard this case, Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners had given an 7 impression that the petitioners were prepared to settle the matter with the opposite party no.2 but today, it has been conveyed that such settlement is not possible as the accused husband is not prepared to live with the complainant opposite party no. 2. In such a situation, the law must take its own course and in any event, this Court, having found no flaw whatsoever in the impugned order taking cognizance, must find both of these cases to be devoid of any merit. That being so, both these applications are hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)