IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.27880 of 2011
With
Cr. Misc. No. 37365 of 2008
1. Priya Ranjan Singh, Son of Late Jai Prasad Singh.
2. Indu Devi, Wife of Sri Priya Ranjan Singh.
3. Anjani Kumar, Son of Sri Priya Ranjan Singh
All are resident of Village Khaira, PS Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Petitioners (in both the cases)
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Deep Shika, Daughter of Sri Jawahar Prasad Jayant, Resident of Village Choti Lagma, PS
Dharhara, District Munger at present residing at Shri Krishna Road, Lallu Pokhar, Near
Bari Kali Asthan, PS Kasim Bazar, District Munger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Opposite Parties (in both the cases)
For the petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, A.P.P.
-----------
2 24.8.2011 The restoration application is allowed
for the reasons mentioned therein and Cr. Misc.
No. 37365 of 2008 is restored to its original
file.
Now the matter is being heard on merit.
The quashing application has been filed
for quashing the order dated 13.6.2008, passed
by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Munger in Complaint Case No. 371C of 2008 by
which the Court below has taken cognizance
under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of the Indian
Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioners are the father-in-law,
mother-in-law and the husband of the victim
girl. The allegation in the complaint petition
2
is that there was demand of Maruti Zen (Car)
and on non-fulfillment of demand, the in-laws
along with the husband used to abuse the
complainant Deep Shikha. Not only that the
accused abused the complainant, it is also
alleged that they assaulted her. On the basis
of the aforesaid allegations, cognizance was
taken.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioner no. 1 i.e. the
father-in-law has instituted a complaint case
being 613C of 2008 in which he has alleged
that Deep Shikha’s father had taken loan from
him and in order to honour the loan had issued
three cheques. Out of the three cheques, only
one cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- could be encashed.
The other two cheques bounced. Thus a case has
been instituted under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act. Strangely enough the reason for taking
loan, has not been mentioned in the complaint
petition. It is submitted that the Court has
taken cognizance in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the husband has filed an
application for restitution of conjugal rights
3
which is pending in the Court below. It is
submitted that the opposite party no. 2 namely
Deep Shikha does not wish to live with her
husband. The reasons for taking such a stand
are not mentioned by the petitioners, so this
cannot be circumstance in favour of the
petitioners.
It would not be proper for this Court
to comment upon the case instituted by the
petitioner no. 1 against Jawahar Prasad, father
of Indu Devi, (opposite party no. 2) being
Complaint Case No. 613C of 2008, as it may
cause prejudice to the petitioners’ case in
future. However, the facts indicate that the
allegations are prima facie true, and the
petitioner no. 1 has raised counter version,
which is highly suspicious.
I do not think that in the facts
aforesaid, this Court can hold that no offence
would be made out under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code and ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
This application is dismissed.
Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)