IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8284 of 2007 RAMA KANT SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.38793 of 2007 UPENDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate (in both cases) For the State : Mr. J. Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Jitendra Prasad Singh O R D E R Both these cases were taken up together for hearing as they arise out of the same Complaint Case No. 1319 (C )of 2005 and having been heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Complaint Case No. 1319 (C) of 2005 was filed by complainant Damayanti Devi, wife of accused no. 1, who is the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 38793 of 2007 impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2. The other four accused have preferred Cr.Misc. No. 8284 of 2007 and all of them through these two petitions have prayed for the quashing of order dated 13.4.2006 passed in the aforesaid complaint case by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under section 498A I.P.C. against all the five accused persons. The complainant filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia stating that her marriage with Upendra Singh (petitioner of Cr.Misc. - 2 - No. 38393 of 2007) was solemnized in the year 1985 whereat costly gifts including gold, silver , ornaments worth Rs. 50000/- were showered on the couple . It is alleged that a few days after she had stepped into the matrimonial home she was taunted by the petitioners for not bringing gifts commensurate with their family status and pressurizing her to ask her father to supply a Rajdoot motorcycle and Rs. 50000/- in cash as additional dowry. The complainant is said to have expressed her fathers inability to condescend to the demand because of his financial crunches but she however conveyed the matter of demand to her father who came and tried to reason and plead with the accused persons but the demand for additional dowry was reiterated. However, her father assured that after making arrangement for money he would fulfill the demand but the same had no effect on the accused persons and the complainant was subjected to abuses assault and torture. She was even made to work as a maid servant and restrictions were put on her fooding. This too the complainant conveyed to her father through the witnesses and as a result of torture her physical conditions detoriated whereupon witness no. 1 took her to the parental home. It was after two years that she returned to her matrimonial home when the husband came and took her back after giving assurances that she would neither be ill treated nor would they misbehave with her. However, there was no improvement in the behaviour and the conduct of the accused who reiterated their demand and she was again subjected to abuses assault and torture and accused no. 5 Uttamrajo allegedly even - 3 - goaded her to commit suicide by taking poison so that Upendra could be married of again which would fetch huge dowry. The complainant kept bearing with the torture and assault. When finally on 25.8.2005 the accused persons in execution of a conspiracy assaulted the complainant and ousted her from matrimonial home with warning that unless and until the demand was made she would not be welcome in the sasural. It is also said that she approached the police who advised her to file a complaint. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners of both the cases that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case, when as a matter of fact no occurrence as alleged had taken place and that the same was fabricated, concocted and far away from the truth. It has further been submitted that the allegations leveled are general and omnibus in nature directed to all the accused and that the complainant out of family dispute had filed the instant complaint at the instance of her father. So far as petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 8284 of 2007 is concerned it has been submitted that they have no concern with the complainant and her husband as they live separately from the complainant and her husband and had been dragged into this case only because they happen to be the family members of the husband. It was also sought to be submitted that although the marriage took place in the year 1985 it is curious that the demand for additional dowry was not made till the year 2005. Some grievances have also been made against the learned Magistrate taking cognizance without - 4 - looking into the matter and without verifying the original truth. So far as the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 38793 of 2007 , the husband, is concerned he had preferred a Cr. Revisional No. 148 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge which was dismissed and the grievance is that no specific reason has been assigned for the same. It is true that the complaint was filed in the year 2005 but from the recital of the complaint petition it would appear that it was shortly following her for entrance into the matrimonial home that the demand had started for additional dowry. It has also come in the complaint petition that for two years the complainant had lived her in parental home where her husband had approached her and brought her back to the matrimonial home. The grievance of the husband that his Cr. Revision had been dismissed without assigning reason is not correct since the learned Sessions Judge had assigned cogent reason for dismissing the revision preferred by the husband. The plea taken by the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 8284 of 2007 that they have no concern with the complainant and her husband cannot be accepted since no material has been brought on record to show that they live separate from the complainant and her husband. As a matter of fact the address of these petitioners is the same as that of Upendra Singh the husband and the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 38793 of 2007. The submissions that the allegations are omnibus and general in nature cannot be accepted since there is specific allegation against the petitioners having assaulted the complainant and ousted her from - 5 - matrimonial home. There is also specific allegation against Yasoda Devi goading the complainant to commit suicide. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any merit in these two applications which are dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 26th of August, 2008 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)