IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38847 of 2007 1. BABBY DEVI @ BABBY KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI VIJAY SHARMA @ VIJAY SINGH. 2. VIJAY SHARMA @ VIJAY SINGH, SON OF LATE KAMTA SINGH. BOTH ARE RESIDENT AT MOHALLA:A/47, ASHOKPURI, KHAJPURA, P.O. BIHAR VETENARY COLLEGE, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT-PATNA, PIN:800014. PERMANENT ADDRESS:-VILLAGE:TENERI, P.O. NADAUL, P.S. MASAUDHI, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SMT. PINKI DEVI, D/O SRI SHYAM NANDAN SINGH, AT PRESENT RESIDES AT IN THE HOUSE OF SRI GOPAL PRASAD(RETD. ADM), NEAR “PUSHPANJALI COMPLEX”, NORTH MANDIRI, P.S. BUDDHA COLONY, PATNA. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. A.K. Shrivastava and Manish Sahay, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Pramod Mishra and V.R. Sonvadra, Advocates. ------------ O R D E R This application by two of the F.I.R. named accused of Fulwarisharif P.S. Case No.103 of 2007 is for the quashing of the order dated 22.6.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. as also Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused including the petitioners. The informant, Pinki Devi, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, on 10.2.2007 filed a written report, duly witnessed by her father, before the police inter alia stating that her marriage was solemnized with Sujit Kumar on 23.5.1994 at her home in Parbatpur in the District of Nalanda - 2 - and after two years her gauna was peformed whereafter she went to her matrimonial home at New Etwarpur within Parsa Bazar P.S. in the District of Patna. She alleged that the F.I.R. named accused, at the matrimonial home tortured her in various ways in connection with a demand for dowry. It is further alleged that on 3.11.2006 she was so severely assaulted by all the F.I.R. named accused that she became unconscious. It is said that on receiving information over telephone the brother of the informant came and took her to hospital for treatment wherefrom she went to her parental home where she has been living for the last three months and her treatment is going on. It is alleged that her father and brother went to her matrimonial home several times in an effort to resolve the matter but the accused people were adamant regarding the payment of dowry and have also been threatening that the husband of the informant would be married elsewhere. It is also stated that out of the wedlock a girl child was born, who is now aged about 2 years, and that ever since she had arrived at the parental home, none from her matrimonial home had either visited her or enquired about her. She claims to have approached the Women’s Commission who made attempts to resolve the matter but they were told by her sasural people that they would not keep her or her child. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the aforesaid police case was registered under Section 498-A I.P.C. only and after due investigation the police submitted a chargesheet under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act whereupon cognizance was taken by the impugned order. - 3 - Assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they being the married sister and brother-in-law of the husband of the informant lived completely separate from the husband of the informant at a different place and have no concern with the family affairs of the husband of the informant and it is only with the motive of putting pressure on the husband and other in-laws that the petitioners have been dragged in in the instant case. The fact of the petitioners living separate from the husband of the informant is sought to be buttressed by Annexure-‘5’ which is a certificate issued from the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna disclosing the address of the petitioner no.2, the husband of petitioner no.1, as A/47 Ashokpuri, Khajpura, P.S. Shastrinagar, as also Annexure-‘6’ which is a works contract order awarded by the Central Public Works Department, Government of India, showing the address of the petitioner no.2 as that given in Annexure-‘5’. It was also sought to be submitted that the instant case is a counter blast to the Matrimonial Case No.491 of 2006 filed by the husband of the informant under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act which has been admitted on 6.12.2006 wherein summons were issued to the informant and her father and duly served upon them on 2.1.2007 and it was only thereafter that the instant case has been filed on 10.2.2007. Opposite Party No.2 has appeared and contested this application but no show cause or written statement has been filed on her behalf and only oral submissions have been made to justify the impugned order. I have perused the written report submitted by the informant and from the same it appears that the allegations against accused persons are - 4 - general and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been alleged against the two petitioners herein. As a matter of fact, it has not even been disclosed as to what items or articles were demanded by way of dowry and the mere allegation is that the informant was tortured for non fulfillment of dowry demands. It is apparent from Annexures-‘5’ and ‘6’ that the two petitioners are living separate from the husband of the informant and his family members, petitioner no.1, being the married sister of the husband of the informant and petitioner no.2 being the husband of petitioner no.1. It is also an admitted position that although the informant alleges being tortured ever since she entered into her matrimonial home, two years after the marriage, i.e., of the year 1996, no information of any kind regarding her torture was given to any authority save and except an approach to the Women’s Commission. It is also apparent that the instant written report has been filed after the receipt of notices in the Divorce Case. In view of the fact that the petitioners are living separate from the husband of the informant, there is no justification in the petitioners facing the trial. Accordingly, the impugned order, so far as the petitioners are concerned, being an abuse of the process of the court, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 30th day of June, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.