CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 29524 OF 2006 ********* (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ******* 1. TIRATH NATH VERMA, SON OF LATE SHYAMLA NAND VERMA 2. SILOCHAN DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI TIRATH NATH VERMA BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA VISHNU NAGAR, NEAR BAZAR SAMITI, POLICE STATION ARA NAWADA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 3. BACHAN LAL, SON OF LATE SWAROOP LAL 4. VINDHYACHAL LAL, SON OF LATE SWAROOP LAL 5. BIPUL LAL, SON OF SHRI VINDHYACHAL LAL 6. PUTUL LAL, SON OF SHRI BACHAN LAL 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UDWANT NAGAR, POLICE STATION UDWANT NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ……………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MINU DEVI @ NITU WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VERMA @ RINKU, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA VISHNU NAGAR, NEAR BAZAR SAMITI, POLICE STATION ARA NAWADA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. AT PRESENT, RESIDING AT MOHALLA C. K. ROAD, ARA (NALA TARI), POLICE STATION ARA TOWN, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ……………………………………………………………………….……..OPPOSITE PARTY ********** P R E S E N T HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.01.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1550 (C) of 2005 by which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ara has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Notices were issued to the complainant in this 2 case. However, nobody has appeared in Court on behalf of the complainant, although vakalatnama has been filed in this case. 3. The allegations in the complaint petition are that the petitioners started demanding money and on the ground that the father of Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) is in good job and could afford to give money to her husband. It is also alleged that the complainant was ill-treated, as a result of which she was admitted in the hospital for 3-4 days. The complainant also alleges that her husband died and her in-laws in order to get rid of her, have placed the entire blame of the death of her husband on the shoulders of the complainant. 4. The facts are that the First Information Report was instituted on 09.08.2005 in which it has been alleged that the husband of the complainant was missing and a case was instituted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. On investigation, the complainant i.e. Minu Devi was found to be involved in the death of her husband and was taken into custody. While in custody, she has filed the present case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the petitioners 1 and 2 along with other family members were demanding dowry and in order to get rid of the complainant, they have instituted a case under Section 3 364 of the Indian Penal Code in which Minu Devi has been shown to be the accused. All these facts are stated in the complaint petition. 5. On perusal of the complaint petition, it would appear that allegations have been made of demand of dowry, however, it is also a fact that the case of Minu Devi was lodged making allegations against her in-laws after she was taken into custody. It has been submitted that the case lodged is an afterthought aimed at implicating the entire family so that they may be forced to compromise in the murder case in which the complainant is accused. The complainant has not only involved the father and mother of her husband, but has also involved the maternal uncles i.e. petitioners 3 and 4, as well as the sons of the maternal uncles, petitioners 5 and 6 and the cousin of the complainant’s husband as accused no. 8. It has been specifically pleaded on behalf of the petitioners 3 to 6 that they are not concerned with any manner with the family life of the complainant or for that matter, the petitioners 1 and 2. 6. It would appear from the narrations of the aforesaid facts that the present complaint case has been filed with the sole purpose to create a defence. If the case of demand of dowry would have been true, it is submitted that it would have been mentioned in the investigation 4 conducted in Ara (Nawada) Police Station Case No. 175 of 2005 wherein the complainant is said to be involved in facilitating the murder of her husband. 7. In the circumstances aforesaid, I think it proper that the Court below should not proceed with the Complaint Case No. 1550C of 2005 until the disposal of Ara (Nawada) Police Station Case No. 175 of 2005. 8. However, this Court also comes to the conclusion that the involvement of petitioners 3 to 6 are for extraneous consideration, considering that they do not reside or are not living with the petitioners 1 and 2 or the complainant after her marriage. 9. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 17.01.2006 in Complaint Case No. 1550 (C) of 2005 is quashed as far as it concerns the above named petitioners 3 to 6. 10. In the result, this application is partly allowed and is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 07th April, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND