IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36657 of 2008 1. Shiv Shankar Raout, son of Late Laxmi Raout. 2. Shakuntala Devi, wife of Late Laxmi Raout. Both residents of village-Birpur, P.S. Birpur, District- Supaul. 3. Sanjay Raout, son of Nagin Raout. 4. Reena Devi, wife of Sanjay Raout. Both residents of Jamalpur, P.S. Jamalpur, District- Munger. ………………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Nissa Devi, wife of Shiv Shankar Raout and daughter of Ashok Raout, at present residing at Sadar Bazar Olipur, Thana-Jamalpur, District- Munger. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate. For the State : None. For the O.P. No.2 : None. ----------------------------------- O R D E R 5. 30.11.2011. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed to quash the order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Munger, in Criminal Revision No.98 of 2008, whereby the Sessions Judge, Munger, has dismissed the aforesaid Criminal Revision, preferred by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 2 15.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case No.1035(C) of 2004, rejecting the application filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge. 2. It appears that initially the present application was filed on behalf of the four accused-petitioners, namely, (1) Shiv Shankar Raout, (2) Shakuntala Devi, (3) Sanjay Raout and (4) Reena Devi, but vide order dated 15.7.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court, this application has been dismissed as against the petitioner no.1, Shiv Shankar Raout. Hence, now, this application is only with respect to the remaining three accused-petitioners, namely, Shakuntala Devi, Sanjay Raout and Reena Devi and shall proceed against them only. 3. The brief facts, leading to this application, are that the complainant-opposite party no.2, Nisa Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case no.1035(C) of 2004, with the contention that her marriage was performed with the accused, Shiv Shankar Raout on 26.2.2003 according to Hindu customs and she went at her Sasural- Birpur in Bidai on 27.2.2003 alongwith all the articles, viz. ornaments, clothes, utensils, furniture etc. given to her on the 3 occasion of her marriage by her parents. She stayed at her Sasural with her husband about 9 days and, thereafter, she was taken in Bidai at her Maika by her uncle, Kishore Raout. At the time of Bidai, when the complainant-opposite party no.2, asked her husband, Shiv Shankar Raout, and mother-in- law, accused-petitioner no.2, Shakuntala Devi, for giving the ornaments and clothes given to her at the time of marriage by her parents, the same was not given to her by them saying that till she returns from her Maika to her Sasural , they will keep the same properly. Thereafter, on 1.4.2003, the complainant-opposite party no.2, was taken at her Sasural by her husband, Shiv Shankar Raout in Bidai, where she was kept properly about 20 days, but, thereafter, her husband, Shiv Shankar Raout and mother-in-law, accused-petitioner no.2, Shakuntala Devi, asked her to bring cash Rs.25000/- from her grand father as her grand father, who was working in the railway, has retired and he has received a huge amount. The complainant-opposite party no.2, refused saying that the huge amount has been spent by her grand father in her marriage as his father is also mentally ill. Thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law, accused-petitioner no.2, Shakuntala Devi, nanad, accused-petitioner no.4, Reena Devi, started 4 abusing her and also slapped her regarding the aforesaid amount and her husband and mother-in-law asked her that if she does not bring cash Rs.25000/- from her grand father, they will burn her to death. The accused-petitioner no.3, Sanjay Raout, also told to kill her and will perform the remarriage of her husband as her husband is in government job. It is also alleged that due to non fulfillment of their demand of Rs.25000/-, all the accused persons used to abuse and assault her and they also did not provide her proper meal and permit her to talk on phone at her Maika. In the meantime, the complainant-opposite party no.2, conceived pregnancy. The complainant-opposite party no.2 also alleged that due to not receiving the message regarding her, her grand father and uncle, Kishore Raout, came at her Sasural on 12.7.2003 and they came to know from neighbours regarding harassment to her by the accused persons. Thereafter, her grand father and uncle convinced all the accused persons and taken her in Bidai but at the time of her Bidai, all the personal belongings of the complainant-opposite party no.2 were kept by her husband, mother-in-law, accused-petitioner no.2, Shakuntala Devi and nanad, accused-petitioner no.4, Reena Devi. On reaching at her Maika, her husband and mother-in- 5 law, accused-petitioner no.2, Shakuntala Devi, used to force her on telephone to ask her grand father to give cash Rs.25000/-, otherwise they will deface her face by pouring acid and remarriage of her husband will be performed. On 28.2.2004, when the condition of the complainant-opposite party no.2 became serious, she got admitted at the clinic of the doctor and her uncle, Kishore Raout, informed at her Sasural on phone, all the accused persons came and they were informed by the doctor to get her operated and obtained the signature of her husband on the form of consent for operation. On 29.2.2004, a dead baby was born after operation. Thereafter, her husband and mother-in-law, accused-petitioner no.2, became annoyed and made demand of cash Rs.25000/- from her grand father and uncle. On this, the grand father of the complainant-opposite party no.2 told them that he has already spent Rs.10,000/- in her treatment, so he could not manage to give Rs.25000/- on which, her husband and mother-in-law, accused-petitioner no.2 became annoyed and went from there. On 1.1.2004, the grand father and uncle of the complainant-opposite party no.2 came at her Sasural, where her husband asked about Rs.25000/-, and when her grand father showed his inability, the husband and 6 nanad of the complainant-opposite party no.2 started abusing them and all the accused persons alongwith three unknowns assaulted her grand father and uncle. Later on, on 14.11.2004, all the accused persons alongwith 3 unknowns came to her Maika and her Nanadosi gave a blank paper to her husband to get it signed by her with endorsement that she has taken all the articles from her Sasural. On refusal to sign on paper, she was abused by them. At the time of returning from her Maika, her husband took away attachee, kept on the table, containing cloths and cash Rs.2000/-, her mother-in-law, the accused-petitioner no.2, Shakuntala Devi, snatched a silver chain from her neck, her nanad, accused-petitioner no.4, Reena Devi, took a locket of the chain and her nanadosi, accused-petitioner no.3, Sanjay Raout, snatched the wrist watch from the hand of her grand father. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the remaining petitioners respectively are mother-in-law, nanadosi and nanad of the complainant-opposite party no.2, Nisa Devi, and they have been falsely implicated in this case with general and omnibus allegation but the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, did not consider the same and illegally rejected the 7 petition filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the accused-petitioners to discharge them vide order dated 15.1.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.1035(C) of 2004 and the Sessions Judge, Munger, also dismissed the Criminal Revision No.98 of 2008 vide order dated 17.7.2008, as preferred by the accused-petitioners against the aforesaid order dated 15.1.2008, rejecting the discharge petition of the accused-petitioners. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another { 2010 (4) PLJR 36 (SC)}. 5. From perusal of the complaint petition, Annexure- ‘1’ to this application, filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2, Nisa Devi, it appears that there is specific allegation against the accused-petitioners in paragraph nos.4, 5 and 7 of the complaint petition, causing cruelty and harassing the complainant-opposite party no.2 for demand of cash Rs.25000/-. The order 15.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case No.1035(C) of 2004, whereby the petition of the accused- petitioners to discharge them has been rejected, it appears 8 that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, on perusal of the evidence of the five witnesses, as examined before the charge, has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation against the accused-petitioners under Sections 498-A, 380 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, rejected the petition for discharge. The Sessions Judge, Munger, has also considered the same and dismissed the Criminal Revision No.98 of 2008 vide order dated 17.7.2008 as preferred by the accused- petitioners against the order dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case No.1035(C) of 2004. 6. There is direct and specific allegation against the accused-petitioners for torturing the complainant-opposite party no.2, Nisa Devi, for demand of cash Rs.25000/- in the complaint petition. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, on perusal of the evidence of the witnesses as recorded before charge has arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence against the accused-petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A, 380 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no ground to discharge the accused persons and the Sessions Judge, Munger, also considering the 9 same arrived at the same conclusion. Apparently, I find no illegality in the order dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in Complaint Case No.1035(C) of 2004 and the order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Munger, in Criminal Revision No.98 of 2008, amounting to abuse of the process of the court. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (Supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would not be applicable in the facts and the circumstances of the case as there is specific allegation against the accused-petitioners. 7. Under the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)