IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55230 of 2006 1. PIYUSH CHANDRA VERMA, SON OF MR. PRAKASH CHANDA VERMA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF “ PALLAVI BHAWAN”, MOHALLA- KHAJUR BANNA NANMUHIA, P.S. SULTANGANJ, TOWN/DISTRICT- PATNA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT P-22/2 RIVER VIEW COLONY, P.S. TELCO, TOWN- JAMSHEDPUR, DISTRICT- W. SINGHBHUM. 2. PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA, S/O SRI M.P. VERMA 3. SMT. VIDYA VERMA, WIFE OF PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA 4. PRATIK CHANDRA VERMA, SON OF PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA PETITIONER NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF PALLVI BHAWAN, MOHALLA- KHAJUR BANNA NANMUHIA, P.S. SULTANGANJ, TOWN/DISTRICT- PATNA…. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. MONA VERMA, WIFE OF SHRI PIYUSH CHANDRA VERMA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF “ PALLAVI BHAWAN’, MOHALLA- KHAJUR BANNA NANMUHIA, P.S. SULTANGANJ, TOWN/ DISTRICT- PATNA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT- P-22/2 RIVER VIEW COLONY, P.S. TELCO, TOWN-JAMSHEDPUR, DISTRICT- WEST SINGHBHUM……………… OPP. PARTIES. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONERS :- M/S SANDEEP KUMAR, AJIT KUMAR & MUKESH, ADVOCATES FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:- MR. VISHUNDEO NARAYAN AND MR. C. S. JHA, ADVOCATES. ------------ 8 23-6-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the State. The complainant was admittedly married in November, 2000 as per Hindu rites and after about five years the present complaint case was lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna bearing no. 1432-C of 2005 for alleged offences under sections 498(A), 323,307 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. By the impugned order dated 2-06-2005 the learned 2 Magistrate has taken cognizance under section 498(A) and 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the four petitioners. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of the complainant, petitioners 2 and 3 are his father and mother respectively. Petitioner no.4 is younger brother . Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon facts stated in the supplementary affidavit to show that the husband of the complainant is not at fault and the behavior of the complainant appears to be unreasonable. However, in course of argument he has made a distinction between the case of petitioner no.1 and that of other petitioners. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vrs. Bharti, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 to submit that allegations against the petitioner no.1, the husband may be somewhat precise and hence the complaint may continue against petitioner no.1 but it is fit to be quashed on account of allegations against petitioners 2,3 and 4 being vague and lacking in essential particulars. The complaint petition which is annexed was pressed only to highlight that the allegation against petitioners 2,3 and 4 is vague and general that they had demanded dowry in the form of Rs.5,00000/- and a car and that soon after the marriage they made sarcastic remarks against the complexion of the complainant alleging that she was dark. It was further highlighted that the allegation in paragraph-10 of the complaint petition that the complainant was assaulted by these petitioners is without any specific particulars as to the place and manner of assault and hence on such vague allegation lacking 3 in material particulars, petitioner nos. 2,3 and 4 should not be prosecuted. The judgment of the Supreme Court cited above related to offences under sections 406, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case on taking into consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that allegations against the accused persons, other than husband, were vague and lacking in particular and that even after notice the complainant did not appear before the Apex Court to resist the prayer for quashing, the Apex Court quashed the order of cognizance in exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after observing that the main accused, the husband of the complainant in that case, had already died . So far as the present case is concerned, the allegation in paragraph-5 and 10 may lack in certain particulars, but the allegation to make out a case under Dowry Prohibition Act appears to be sufficient at the stage of cognizance. Only whether a prima facie case is made out is required to be seen by the learned Magistrate at the stage of cognizance. Further, in this case the complainant has appeared and has filed counter affidavit and is contesting the case on the allegation that petitioners 2,3 and 4 are also behind her husband who is encouraged by the sarcastic remarks against the complexion of the complainant. Further, in this case the husband is still alive and it would not be proper to quash the order of cognizance only in part. Hence, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case it is not deemed proper to interfere with the order of cognizance . This application is, therefore, dismissed. 4 It is made clear that individual petitioners will be at liberty to pray for discharge from this case on the basis of merit of their individual cases at appropriate stage. The observation made in this order shall not prejudice the court below while considering the case of the petitioners at later stage. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)