IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41229 of 2007 1. SUBHASH CHANDRA JHA SONOF NARESH JHA 2. NARESH JHA SON OF LATE FUDAN JHA 3. VASUNDHARA KUMARI @ DEVI WIFE OF NARESH JHA ALL RESIDNET OF MOHALLA- GANGJALA WARD NO. – 8, SAHARSA, P.S. & DISTRICT- SAHARSA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMESH MISHRA SON OF LATE KANTIR MISHRA, R/O VILL- KAHRA, P.S. & DISTRICT- SAHARSA 3. RAKSHA KUMARI WIFE OF SUBHANSH CHANDRA JHA AND DAUGHTER OF RAMESH MISHRA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF KAHRA, P.S. & DISTRICT- SAHARSA ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ajay, Advocate For the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 :- Mr. Bibhuti Pd. Pandey, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.C. Giri, Advocate For the State :- Mr. R. B. Roy, APP ---------------------- 3 09/04/2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 699 ( C ) of 2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. A complaint was filed by the father of Raksha Kumari alleging therein that his daughter was married with accused no. 1 on 23.5.2005. Sometimes, thereafter, the accused persons started raising demand of rupees one lac by way of additional dowry. The complainant was unable to satisfy the demand and for that his daughter 2 was mentally and physically tortured by the accused persons which was informed by her to her parents. Allegation was that despite the best efforts of the complainant the accused persons continuously tortured his daughter and ultimately the complaint case was filed and cognizance was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that prior to the present case a petition for annulment of the marriage was filed because the daughter of the complainant was insane for which she was medically treated. When the notice of matrimonial case was served upon the complainant, the present complaint case was filed so this is out and out a malicious prosecution at the behest of the complainant. A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3. It is stated that the husband of the victim has preferred anticipatory bail before this Hon’ble Court and in pursuance of the direction of this Court the victim Raksha Kumari was admitted for observation in Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna and the doctor has found her behavior to be normal. The report of the doctor has been annexed as Annexure R-3/1 to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 that branding a normal 3 person to be abnormal is a cruelty and for that the petitioners are fully responsible. It has also been submitted that in the matrimonial suit the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat where the petitioner has not cooperated with the court in reconciliation. From the materials available on the record, it appears that the accused persons have committed torture upon the complainant’s daughter and on that basis cognizance has been taken. At the stage of taking cognizance the court is not required to go into the elaborate defence of the accused which the accused persons may take after their appearance. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)