IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43998 of 2007 1. Satya Narayan Sah son of Jayanath Sah 2. Krishna Devi wife of Satya naayan Sah 3. Gopal Prasad @ Gopal Prasad Gupta son of Satya Narayan Sah Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioners : M/S. Baxi S. R.P. Sinha & B. P. Gupta For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, A.P.P. For the informant : Mr. Sachchida Nand Singh 5 09/02/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners who are the family members of the deceased husband of the informant seek quashing of the order of cognizance and the entire proceedings against them under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Ara Nawadah P.S. Cas e No. 266 of 2006. Originally the informant filed a complaint case No. 1487-C of 2006 under sections 498-A, 324, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint alleged the date of occurrence from 9.5.2003 till date. The complaint stated that the complainant was married to the deceased on 9.3.2003; that the relation was good for one and a half year after the marriage and the harassment for dowry started thereafter. She was assaulted and whenever she complained to her husband, she was admonished by his family members. Her sister-in-law also harassed her. Nontheless her relation with her husband was good leading to two female children being born. When her husband sided with her both were also admonished and both were threatened to be turned out of the house. The deceased husband of the informant then reached her to her - 2 - paternal home along with the children (no date is mentioned in the complaint when she was taken back to her parental home). The complaint then goes to state that her husband died on 27.10.2005 in suspicious circumstance of which she was not informed and the body was disposed of. She was informed two days later and on enquiry no clear statement was given to her of the cause for death. She along with her brother informed the police of the death of her husband but because the petitioners were in contact with the high-ups, the death was changed into a natural death. The complainant then started to reside with the minor children in Jagdeo Nagar. Her in-laws did not care for her. On 28.9.2006 the petitioners planned to dispossess her from the house in Jagdeo Nagar when she had to leave from there in order to save her life. In this manner, she was chased out of the matrimonial home. The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was placed, sent it for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when after investigation chargesheet was submitted under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act leading to the present orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint alleges that harassment for dowry commenced after the marriage in 2003 itself. Her husband was alive till 2005. Despite the support from her husband for the alleged harassment by the petitioners, no prosecution was filed either by the informant or her husband. The allegations have surfaced only after the death of the husband of the informant. From the allegations in the complaint itself, - 3 - it is submitted that the dispute essentially relates to property rights when the informant herself claims that she has been dispossessed from the matrimonial home at Jagdeo Nagar. Learned counsel for the informant submits that there were only four private prosecution witnesses. One has died and three have already been examined. Only the I.O. remains to be examined. There was no justification to interfere with the trial at such a belated stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, there were in all seven chargesheet witnesses including the I.O. In the nature of the allegations that no complaint was made or prosecution initiated for dowry and harassment which commenced in 2003 till the death of the husband of the complainant in 2005 and that two children were born from the wedlock satisfies this Court that the allegations of torture and harassment for dowry are not bonafide. Had it been so, surely the informant could have lodged a prosecution, more particularly when she had the support of her husband as is alleged in the present prosecution. This would have probably added strength to the protest being made by her. Absence of any allegation or prosecution during the life time of the husband is a significant factor. From the pleadings in the complaint, more particularly the penultimate paragraph of the same with regard to the house at Jagdeo Nagar from which she claims to have been ousted, the tussle between the parties appears to be primarily with regard to the property and the claim made in regard to the estate of her late husband. Those are civil aspects of the matter which could be considered appropriately in civil proceedings. This Court is satisfied that in the facts and - 4 - circumstances of the present case to allow the prosecution to continue in the garb of criminal prosecution for what was essentially a civil dispute, shall be a gross abuse of the process of the law. Accordingly, the order of cognizance and the entire proceedings in Arrah Nawadah P.S. Case no. 266 of 2006 is quashed. This application stands allowed. The present order shall have no bearing whatsoever in any civil proceeding initiated by the informant with regard to her claim to the estate of her deceased husband which shall be decided in accordance with the civil law only. (Navin Sinha, J.) AMIN