IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15740 of 2006 PARMILA SHARMA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : None ________ O R D E R Five of the seven persons impleaded as accused in Complaint Case no.2077 of 2004 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 2.3.2005 passed therein by Sri Prabhakar Dutta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur , whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323,504,379 I.P.C. One Madan Kumar Sharma, the complainant, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging inter alia that he had been married with accused Pramila Devi on 22.6.2003 and after marriage they lived as husband and wife and on 22.9.2003, accused nos. 1,2,3,4 and 7 came to the house of the complainant for bidai of Pramila Devi and while leaving they along with Pramila Devi took away clothes worth Rs.25,000/- and ornaments worth Rs.45, 000/- with them. It is further alleged that after three months of bidai when the complainant along with his father informed the brothers of Pramila Devi for her bidai, the brothers kept delaying the matter under one pretext or the other. It is the contention of the complainant that on 22.2.2004, the complainant along with his friend went to his sasural to meet his wife on his Hero Honda Motorcycle , bearing Registration no. BR-06-7246 but instead - 2 - received with cordiality accused nos.1 and 2 started abusing him and snatched away the vehicle and when they were asked regarding such behaviour , the accused gave out that their sister was not ready to live with the complainant and that he should send the papers of the vehicle as also Rs.50,000, failing which they along with the entire family members would be implicated in a dowry case. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent and have been implicated in this case falsely only to take revenge. It is further said that while the complainant in his statement on S.A. supported the complainant’s case, the three witnesses, namely, Shahid Hassan Mian, Sita Ram Singh and Vijay Kumar Sharma were examined on his behalf and they somehow supported the case of the complainant, but no fool-hardy case was made out to secure the ends of justice. Attempts were made to show enmity between the two feuding in parties. It was also alleged that for non-fulfillment of the demand for additional dowry of Rs.50, 000/-, Pramila Sharma was subjected to torture, both mentally and physically, by all the accused persons. It is further said that somehow Pramila Sharma was able to leave her matrimonial home and came to her Naihar at Kharagpur and on 22.12.2004 filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Medinipur against six accused persons being C.R.Case no.735 of 2004 alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A, 323,406 , 506/34 I.P.C. and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is said that the said complaint was filed in Bengali script. But the present complaint was - 3 - in Hindi. After enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. , the court at Medinipur found prima facie materials against accused nos.1,2,5 and 6 and issued summons for their appearance. It has also been submitted that it has been gathered that petitioner no.1 had also filed a petition before the Family Court at Muzaffarpur. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it would be apparent from perusal of the complaint petition that a dispute arose on 22.2.2004 and after a lapse of seven months the present complaint petition was filed on false allegations. It would also appear that in paragraph-9 of the complaint petition, it has been mentioned that petitioner no.1 had some illicit relationship, which is patently vague and far from the truth. Opp.Party no.2 was served with notice and he has not chosen to appear and contest the case, and as such, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners remain unrebutted. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been mentioned that petitioner no.1 ,Pramila Sharma, had filed Matrimonial Suit No.532 of 2006 against Opp.Party no.2 for getting a decree of divorce and the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C.No.2, West Muzaffarpur vide Judgment and decree dated 3.8.2007 passed decree of divorce in favour of the petitioners. On the aforesaid premise, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners could not be faulted or prosecuted for the alleged - 4 - offences whereas the cognizance has been taken and the same appears to be an abuse of the process of the court. Having perused the materials on record and having heard submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners which remains unrebutted due to the non-appearance of Opp.Party no.2, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 17th September,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.