IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42934 of 2007 YASHWANT KUMAR, S/o Sri Suresh Chandra Jha, R/o village Kharahar, P.S. Barahat, District – Banka. ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kiran Jha, D/o Sri Manmohan Jha, R/o Tulsi Nagar, Bank Colony, Sabour Road, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, District – Bhagalpur. ……. Opp. Parties ----------- 2 12.1.2009 Heard Sri Abhay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. The petitioner who is one of the named accused of Complaint Case No. 487 of 2007 is aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, whereby he has taken cognizance for offence under sections 323, 341, 379, 504, 498A I.P.C. and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has prayed for quashing thereof. The prosecution case can be culled out from the complaint petition filed by Kiran Jha, the complainant wife of the petitioner, impleaded as O.P. No. 2 herein. According to the complainant, she happens to be a news reader in English with All India Radio and has recorded several audio and video cassettes in connection with Hindi and Bhojpuri Lok Sangeet. She claims that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 2.7.2006 whereat Rs. seven lacs in government currency and house hold articles to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs and ornaments worth Rs. one lac were presented and are kept in custody with accused nos. 2 and 3, who happen to be the parents – in – law of the complainant. It is alleged that 4 – 5 days after her - 2 - entry in the matrimonial home the accused persons started torturing her demanding a Maruti Zen car as additional dowry and in that respect she was assaulted and threatened by the husband. She claims to have managed to send information to her parents and elder sister whereupon her father along with her sister and brother – in – law came over and pleaded and reasoned with the accused persons not to torture the complainant and that she should be taken to Delhi where the husband was employed. It is said that the petitioner took the complainant to Delhi on 14.7.2006 and stayed in the house of the matrimonial uncle where the maternal uncle, aunt and cousins of the petitioner tortured and assaulted the complainant in various ways. It is said that when the petitioner came to know about his wife being in the family way he asked her to get the foetus aborted and complainant was brought to her sasural under the pretext of her mother – in – law being ill and she was forcibly administered medicines which terminated the pregnancy. The allegations of attempt being made by the accused persons to set her on fire have also been attributed and a long list of cruel acts have been mentioned. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel sought to bring to my notice Annexure 6, which happens to be a bio-data of the complainant, with the intention to show that the complainant was older than the petitioner – husband. However, this could hardly be an issue for false implication. - 3 - The learned counsel next sought to bring to my notice annexures 3 and 4 which are informatory petitions filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, by the father of the petitioner apprehending arrival doomsday in the family at the instance of the complainant. These informatory petitions which are dated 8.12.2006 and 9.2.2007 may have been filed as a defence for the subsequent overt acts committed on the complainant. That apart both these informatory petitions unfortunately happen to be the defence of the petitioner and the same cannot be looked into at this stage and that too in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that on 6.12.2006 the petitioner having been fed up with unnatural and unforeseen behaviour of the complainant - wife had filed a matrimonial case seeking dissolution of marriage with the complainant in a Court in Delhi where both are said to have been residing. The filing of the maintenance case for dissolution of marriage brings to the fore that there is no dispute regarding marriage between the complainant and the petitioner. A perusal of the complaint petition reveals that the torture on the complainant had started five days after the solemnization of the marriage and continued till 18.3.2007 when she was ousted from the matrimonial home. The complaint petition also reveals that she was forcibly made to terminate her pregnancy on 18.3.2007. In this connection it was sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner - 4 - that the long impugned order taking cognizance has mis-believed the complainant’s story regarding the abortion and attempt to burn her. That may be so but the Court at the same time has taken cognizance under section 498A I.P.C. as they happen to be forms of torture. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner raises strong objections to the impugned order submitting that the alleged attempt to burn the complainant took place on 18.3.2007 which was after the date of filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage when they were not living together. This submission cannot be accepted since it is clear in the complaint petition itself that the wife had been brought to the sasural in the village by her husband under pretext of the mother – in – law being sick and even otherwise if the fact be true it is mere defence of the petitioner which is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Having given my anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)