IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40828 of 2007 1. AKHILESH PRASAD @ AKHILESH KUMAR SON OF LATE SUB LAL 2. MANJU RANI @ MANJU RANI BARNWAL W/O AKHILESH KUMAR 3. SHAILESH KUMAR SON OF AKHILESH KUMAR 4. SHALINI PRIYADARSINI D/O AKHILESH KUMAR ALL R/O VILLAGE EAST ASHOK NAGAR, ROAD NO. 12, KANKARBAGH,P.S.- KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. SWATI KUMARI WIFE OF SHAILENDRA KUMAR D/O SRI GHANSHYAM PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- PRASAD BIGHA, P.S.- NAWADAH, DISTRICT- NAWADAH ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate Mr. Hirday Prasad, Advocate For the opposite party No. 2 :- Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate ----------------- 3 26/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the complainant’s husband. Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the younger brother and married sister of the complainant’s husband respectively. The complainant, namely, Swati Kumari was married with Shailendra Kumar the son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Due to some matrimonial incompatibility she had filed complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah. In which the complainant and other witnesses were examined on S.A. and the Court vide order dated 23.6.2007 had directed for issuance of processes upon the accused persons. The petitioners are aggrieved 2 from that order. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no concern with the family affairs of complainant and her husband. The complainant after marriage started living separately in Jamnagar in the district of Jalgaon (Maharastra) where her husband was working in the State Bank of India. The petitioner no. 4 is the married sister of the complainant’s husband and the petitioner no. 3 is the younger brother of complainant’s husband. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 3 is working in bank from before the marriage of the complainant and he is having separate residence before the occurrence. The parents of the complainant’s husband are also living separately and they have no concern at all with the allegation of demand or torture. The petitioners could not be the benefited persons if the demand of car as alleged is fulfilled. Petitioner no. 4 lives in separate village and she is not going to get any thing from whatever demand is made by the complainant’s husband. It is also submitted that it has become practice that all the inlaws are roped in for the offences under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code only for the purpose of putting pressure so that the entire family members may succumb to the greed of the complainant. Complainant Swati Kumari was married on 3 12.5.2003 with Shailendra Kumar son of the petitioner nos. 1` and 2 . She went with her husband at his place of working after ten days of the marriage. She returned to residence of her husband at Patna on 6.11.2003 and it is alleged that her husband started putting pressure upon her for demanding a Maruti Car from her parents. She was unable to put pressure upon her parents because her parents have already spent a lot and on account of not getting the maruti car all the accused persons started torturing her in various ways. She had to file a complaint which has resulted into initiation of instant proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the order impugned is bad in view of the decisions reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 271 (Ashok Kumar Chaurasia & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) and 2009 (2) PLJR 310 (Ranjeet Srivastava & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.) It is also submitted that in view of the similar facts and circumstances the petitioners are entitled to get the relief as granted to the petitioners of aforementioned cases. The allegation of torture has been levelled only against the husband. At the stage of taking cognizance the Court is not required to go into the broader aspects of the defence. If the complainant petition is filed and statements of the witnesses are recorded and those narrations make out a case upon 4 which the Court should proceed then only option open to the Court is that it should proceed with the case. At the stage of taking cognizance the Court is not required to decide as to whether there were sufficient materials which should warrant conviction or not. At the stage of taking cognizance it is to be seen as to whether the materials are enough or not on which the Court should proceed. At this stage it is not required for the court to consider as to whether the persons are separate in residence etc. These are the stands which the accused may take after their appearance before the Court. In the present case, I am of the view that the Court has considered the complaint petition and statements of the witnesses and found a prima facie case on which it has decided to proceed. At the present stage it cannot be said that the allegations are levelled only with a view to create pressure. On this ground order taking cognizance cannot be set aside. In the result, I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise their defence at the appropriate stage. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)