IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.18838 of 2006
IMTIAZ AHMAD & ANR
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
-----------
For the Petitioner : M/s. M. Nasrul Hoda Khan & Md. Tahimuddin ,
Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Deepak Kumar Singh & S.M. Shabbir
Alam, Advocates.
------------
ORDER
The present application has been filed by the husband and
his brother for the quashing of the order dated 24.6.2005 passed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagha, West Champaran,
in Complaint Case No.218(C) of 2005, whereby he has taken
cognizance under Section 498 A I.P.C. against the petitioners and
others and has directed for issuance of process against them. An
additional prayer has been made for quashing also of “the entire
consequential process of prosecution case.”
According to the complaint petition filed by the
complainant, Ruksana Khatoon, who has been impleaded herein as
O.P. No.2, her nikah with Imtiaz Ahmad, petitioner no.1, was
performed on 6.6.1993 even as she was teenager and rukhsadi was
performed in the year 1998. It is alleged that on entry into the marital
home even as she took up her matrimonial obligations, the behaviour
of the accused persons was not congenial and they resorted to taunting
her as her father had allegedly not provided sufficient cash at the time
-2-
of rukhsadi and they started pressurizing her to bring from her father
Rs.2 lakhs as dowry and when she refused to oblige, in view of the
poor financial capacity of her father and brother, the accused persons
became furious and she was subjected to cruelty and torture, both
physical and mental, which she in due course transmitted to her
parents and brother. They on receipt of the information along with
some witnesses came over and enquired about Ruksana’s torture. It is
said that the accused persons told the visitors that Imtiaz Ahmad, the
husband, had given up his job as cashier with the Private Banking
Company at Aligarh and the sum of Rs.2 lakhs by way of dowry was
required to establish him in business. They also allegedly warned that
if the amount was not furnished the torture of the complainant would
continue unabated. It is said that shocked by the behaviour of the
accused persons and their unreasonable demand the father of the
complainant died. It is also said that repeated attempts by the brother
of the complainant and the witnesses to plead with the accused
persons not to subject the complainant to torture was not heeded and
eventually on 9.4.2005 she was assaulted and ousted from the
matrimonial home. She has since then been residing with her mother
and brother.
Denying the allegation of dowry demand it was submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the accused
persons desired to keep the complainant with all respect and
cordiality, it was the complainant who never wished to stay in the
matrimonial home and the only condition laid down for living with the
-3-
husband was that the husband transfer his property in the name of the
complainant. It has also been submitted that prior to the filing of the
instant complaint petition, the husband of the complainant had filed
Complaint Case No.230(C) of 2002 against the father of the
complainant and his brother which was still pending before the
S.D.J.M., Bagha, and had also filed a petition before Emarat Saraiya,
Baswaria Branch for restoration of conjugal rights. In this connection,
it was sought to be submitted that the fact that the complainant was
living in her parental house continuously ever since 1999 would be
apparent from the assertions in the petition of Complaint Case
No.230(C) of 2002 and when the husband went to bring her back, the
complainant, her father and brother assaulted him and told him to
remarry Ruksana or else they would file a case against him. Several
other points have been raised in defence in respect of accused nos.3, 4
and 5 who are not petitioners in this application.
In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent
powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the
complaint does not disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive.
Allegations of malafide against the complainant are of no
consequence and cannot by itself form the basis for quashing the
proceedings. It is the material collected at the enquiry under Section
202 Cr.P.C. which decides the fate of the accused persons. It is by
now well settled that the normal rule would be that if the allegations
and the surrounding circumstances of the particular case constitute
prima facie materials calling for a trial, interference would not be in
-4-
the interest of justice and would clearly be contrary to law.
That apart no law point has been raised so as to call for any
interference.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this application which is
dismissed.
(Abhijit Sinha,J)
Patna High Court, Patna.
Dated: The 4th of July, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.