IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.52762 of 2008 1. Kumar Vikrant son of Ram Ayodhya Prasad. 2. Ram Ayodhya Prasad son of late Shyam Narayan Prasad. 3. Srimati Girija Devi wife of Ram Ayodhya Prasad. All residents of Mohalla-Raja Bazar, Police Station- Shastrinagar, District-Patna. ……….Accused…….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Shrimati Jyotsna Singh, daughter of late Brijraj Krishna Singh, wife of Kumar Vikrant, resident of Mohalla-B, Area, Mithapur, Police Station-Jakkanpur, District-Patna. ……..Opposite Parties For the Petitioners :- Mr. Narbdeshwar Pd. Singh, Adv. Mr. Chandra Mauli Pd. Singh, Adv. For the O.P. No.2 :- Hemendra Pd. Singh, Adv. For the State :- Gauri Shankar Gupta, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- 06 05.12.2011 The petitioners have approached this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the order dated 22.09.2008, passed in Complaint Case No. 3297 (C) of 2007 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, summoning the accused- petitioners under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on enquiry, finding prima facie case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1, Kumar Vikrant, husband of complainant-opposite party no. 2, has already filed a divorce case in the month of April, 2007 against his wife-O.P. No.2, followed by the Complaint Case No. 1206 C of 2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 2, Ramayodhaya Prasad, father-in-law, against the brothers of complainant-opposite party no. 2 in which cognizance has already been taken by the trial Court, which would appear from Annexures-2 and 3 respectively to this petition. Due to aforesaid reasons with 2 oblique motive and only to give undue pressure and to harass the petitioners, the complainant-opposite party no. 2 has filed the present complaint case, implicating the petitioners and other accused but the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has summoned only the accused-petitioners finding prima facie case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, without applying his mind on merit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, made submission that from the complaint petition, it would appear that there is specific allegation against the petitioners to torture opposite party no. 2 for demand of cash amount of Rs. 6, 00,000/- (six lacs) and the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at conclusion that prima facie case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out. It is also submitted that it would appear from the record of this petition that while the attempt was made to settle the dispute between the parties, petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, who are husband and wife, but no successful result came out, which would appear from the record itself that the record has been returned from mediation centre with said observation. It appears that the allegation has been made by opposite party no. 2 in her complaint petition that she was tortured and harassed at the hand of her husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, who are petitioners, and eleven others for demand of cash amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lacs), as the petitioner no. 1, had purchased the Tata Indica vehicle of the said value. The impugned order dated 22.09.2008 goes to show that the learned Sub Divisional 3 Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and statements of the four witnesses, examined in course of enquiry, has arrived at conclusion that prima facie case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against accused-petitioners. In complaint petition, there is specific allegation against the petitioners to harass the complainant-opposite party no. 2. Under the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. So far as the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners about filing the present complaint case by opposite party no. 2 with oblique motive due to filing of divorce case and complaint case against opposite party no. 2 and his brothers are concerned, at the time of summoning the accused, the Magistrate/Court is only required to see as to whether on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and the statements of the witnesses prima facie case is made out or not. At that time the Magistrate/Court is not required to look into the defence of the accused. I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)