Patna High Court – Orders
Sanju Thakur & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 December, 2008

                                       Cr.Misc. No.37533 of 2007

                1. SANJU THAKUR , S/o Rampati Thakur
                2. Munna Thakur, S/o Rampati Thakur
                3. Urmila Devi, W/o Rampati Thakur
                4. rampati Thakur, S/o Late Deonaudan Thakur
                5. Asha Devi, W/o Munna Thakur
                6. Ripu Thakur, S/o Mahendra Thakur
                7. Narendra alias Sabindra thakur, S/o Ramdip Thakur
                   All R/o village Kako Bula Kuan, P.O. P.S Kako, District -
                8. Sanjogani Devi, W/o Sanju Thakur, R/o Anthua, P.S. Ghoshi,
                   District - Jehanabad
                                                          ...... Petitioners
                1. STATE OF BIHAR
                2. Rekha Devi, W/o Sanju Thakur, R/o village Kako Bula Kuan, P.O.
                   P.S Kako, District - Jehanabad. At present resides in the house of
                   his father Kishori Thakur, Village Manichak, P.S. Masaurhi,
                   District Patna.
                                                          ....   Opp. Parties.

                         For the petitioner     : M/s Ranjeet Kumar and
                                                     Sunil Kumar, Advocates
                         For the State          : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P.
                         For O.P. No. 2         : M/s Binod Kumar and
                                                     Chandraket Singh, Advocates


3 3.12.2008 All the 8 persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 335(C) of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 19.4.2007 passed therein by Sri Ram Sajan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Masaurhi, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance for offence punishable under section 498Aand 494 I.P.C. against the petitioners.

Rekha Devi, the wife of petitioner no. 1, Sanju Thakur, impleaded herein on O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint, inter alia, alleging therein that her marriage with petitioner no. 1 was solemnized some eight years back where presentation of clothes worth Rs. 10,000/- and cash of Rs. 20,000/- commensurate with the paying capacity of her father and brother were made. On entry into the matrimonial home, it is alleged, she was taunted by the accused persons for having brought insufficient money and gifts and she was often told to bring a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her parents but she refused to oblige for which she was subjected to assault and torture. It is said that out of the wedlock a son and daughter were born and ever since the birth of the daughter her torture increased and she was told that since the marriage of daughter incurs heavy expenditure, she should bring Rs. 10,000/- which be deposited in the name of the daughter. It is alleged that her father frequently rendered financial help and even bought a cycle for Sanju Thakur but notwithstanding the same her torture continued unabated. It is said that in the month of January, 2005 an attempt was made by the accused persons to end her life for which she filed a complaint case before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, and following a compromise, she did not proceed with the same. It is further stated that on 14.1.2006 she was brought back to the matrimonial home by her husband who thereafter left for Gujarat to earn his livelihood and here he solemnized a second marriage with petitioner no. 8, Sanjogani Devi and since then she was being compelled to live with her father.

From a perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the allegation of offences under section 498AI.P.C. against all the petitioners is of general and ambiguous nature with no specific allegation of commission of any overt act against any of the petitioners. That apart petitioner no. 8 could not have been fastened with the liability of an offence under section 498A IPC since she had admittedly no role to play in the alleged torture. Then again the delay in filing the complaint after such a long period remains unexplained.

Accordingly, the cognizance for offence under section 498A IPC against the petitioners herein cannot be sustained in law and has to be quashed.

So far as the offence under section 494 IPC is concerned, it has to be limited to the husband, petitioner no. 1, only and the other petitioners cannot be fastened with the liability for same. Hence the cognizance under section 494 IPC also cannot be sustained against all the petitioners except petitioner no. 1.

Accordingly, this application is allowed and order taking cognizance under sections 498A and 494 IPC so far as petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are quashed. However, while quashing the order taking cognizance under section 498A IPC against petitioner no. 1, the cognizance for offence under section 494 IPC is sustained.

Accordingly while allowing the application in full so far as petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are concerned, it is allowed in part to the extent indicated in the foregoing paragraph.

(Abhijit Sinha, J.) Spd/-

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s