IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46335 of 2007 1. SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, SON OF LATE JHARI SAO. 2. PARWATI DEVI, WIFE OF SHIV SHANKER PRASAD. 3. SUNIL KUMAR ANOKHA, SON OF SHIV SHANKER PRASSAD. 4. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR ANOKHA, SON OF SHIV SHANKER PRASAD. 5. SUSHIL KUMAR ANOKHA, SON OF SHIV SHANKER PRASAD. 6. SUDHIR KUMAR ANOKHA, SON OF SHIV SHANKER PRASAD. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-DAYACHAK, P.S. BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA. ..................................................................PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PRITI KUMARI , WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR ANOKHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE BALESHWAR SAH, RESIDENT OF 2ND TOLA BARHIYA, P.S. BARHIYA, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. .........................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, Sr. Advocate And Mira Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate. ------------ O R D E R
All the six persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.51(C) of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 11.4.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Priti Kumari, the complainant, impleaded as O.P. No.2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint on 24.2.2007 inter alia stating that her marriage with Anil Kumar Anokha, petitioner no.4 herein, was solemnized on 23.5.2005 at her parental home in Barhiya and out of the wedlock a girl child was born. It is alleged that ever since the birth of the female child all the accused persons started taunting her and demanded Rs.50,000/- in cash and a motorcycle as dowry and notwithstanding her attempts to reason with them and pacify them, all the accused persons started assaulting and torturing her in various ways and on one occasion she had to go without food and water for 2-3 days. On information being sent to her parental home, her brother and the witnesses came over to her matrimonial home to reason with the accused persons but they remained adamant and the demand for dowry was reiterated. Eventually, after assaulting her and confiscating all her articles including the ornaments she was ousted from the matrimonial home with a warning that if she entered into litigation she would be killed. She claimed to have approached the police who advised her to take help from the court. She also alleged that on one occasion all the accused had attempted to strangulate her.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that O.P. No.2 never intended to live with her in-laws in the matrimonial home which led to altercations between the wife and the husband and on unwarranted interference from the mother of O.P. No.2 matters worsened and eventually the husband filed Complaint Case No.C 415 of 2006 on 1.10.2006 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, on the basis whereof Barh P.S. Case No.382 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323, 504/34, 379 I.P.C. was registered against O.P. No.2 and her family members and warrants were issued against them and the present case has been filed as a counter blast to that case on false allegations.
It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have always been ready and willing to keep the complainant with all honour and dignity and are still ready to perform their part of obligations but it is the complainant who is not ready to live with them and carry out the matrimonial duties.
The learned counsel for O.P. No.2 sought to submit that for want of dowry she was being tortured in various ways in the matrimonial home and was even thrown out therefrom and such occasions took place several times and in that view of the matter it could be said with certainty that she had been subjected to torture and cruelty and, therefore, an offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had clearly been made out.
Admittedly, the complainant in her complaint petition has not stated anything about Complaint Case No.C-415 of 2006 having been filed against her and her relatives and the reasons therefor. She has sought to suppress this material fact and has sought to project her own torture at the hands of the accused.
I have had the occasion to read the complaint petition filed by the complainant -O.P. No.2 as also the complaint petition filed by the husband which resulted in Barh P.S. Case No.382 of 2006. It appears from perusal of the instant complaint petition filed by O.P. No.2 that all the allegations made by her against the accused persons are general and omnibus in nature and no specific instances of any overt act having been committed with their date and time by the accused persons, whether individually or collectively, has been divulged. In this view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the instant case had been filed as a counter blast to Barh P.S. Case No.382 of 2006 appears to be logical and well founded. To my mind, from the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint petition it does not appear to be a case of an offence having been committed under Section 498-A I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same appears to have been filed with malafide intentions.
Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, I quash the impugned order dated 11.4.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in Complaint Case No.51(C) of 2006 and allow the application.
(Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna.
Dated: The 23rd of January, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.