IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25994 of 1999 1. DEVENDRA KUMAR MISHRA S/O LATE BISHNU NARAYAN MISHRA. 2. SATYENDRA KUMAR MISHRA S/O DEVENDRA KUMAR MISHRA 3. GIRZA DEVI W/O DEVENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF B/30/2 A-2, GANGABAGH COLONY, LANKA, DIST- VARANASI (U.P.)………………………………………...…PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NARENDRA NATH MISHRA S/O SRI SOMNATH MISHRA, R/O PANDUKA, P.S.CHUNTIA, DIST-ROHTAS, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF DARIYAPUR GOAL, P.S.KADAMKUAN, DIST- PATNA………………………………………………...OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners:- Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, APP --------- 3. 03-May-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No.2, the Complainant. In spite of notice and appearance through a counsel, nobody has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2, the complainant. 2. All the three petitioners have prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 5.7.99 passed by S.D.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No. 456 © of 1996 whereby discharge application filed on behalf of the petitioners no.2 and 3, Satyendra Kumar Mishra and Girza Devi has been rejected and charges have been framed against all the three petitioners under Sections 406/420 of the IPC and under Section ¾ of the Dowry - 2 - Prohibition Act. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that some letters annexed with this application would show that in those letters the complainant did not raise a grievance that the accused persons have demanded a car and Rs.2.5 Lacs by way of dowry. It has further been submitted that on that account the entire allegations made by the complainant should be disbelieved and lastly it has been submitted that even if the allegations be accepted as true that Rs.95,000/- in total has been taken from the complainant but agreement for marriage was not honoured, the ingredients of no offence is made out because there is no allegation that at the inception of the agreement for marriage there was dishonest intention. Some selected letters whose genuineness remains to be examined cannot be taken in defence of the accused persons at the present stage. In the complaint petition, there is categorical allegation that after the complainant had paid money and other articles of the value of Rs.95,000/- in total, a further demand of a car worth Rs. 7 Lacs and money amounting to Rs.2.5 Lacs were made by way of dowry and due to that reason the marriage negotiation had to be abandoned but the money earlier paid by the complainant was never returned. - 3 - 4. In the light of aforesaid allegations and considering that it was not a business transaction, there is strong suspicion of dishonest intention from the beginning that if the ultimate demand for dowry is not paid the marriage would not be finalized. 5. In the facts of the case, subsequent conduct, as per allegations that the amount of Rs.95,000/- was not refunded, appears to be a relevant consideration at the time of framing of charges. 6. This Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned order in respect of petitioners no.2 and 3. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is clear from the impugned order that he had not made any prayer for discharge. 7. This order shall not prejudice the case of the petitioners at subsequent stage. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)