CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ashutosh Pandey vs State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 22 June 2015 · Citation: (2015) 3 BBCJ 158 : (2015) 3 BLJud 261

HON’BLE JUDGES
Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39281 of 2012 (Arising out of P.S. Case No. -1206 Year- 2010 Thana - Complaint District-BUXAR)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 388 words

Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. (Oral)—The Petitioners seek to withdraw the application so far as the Petitioner No. 1 is concerned.

2.

The application is dismissed as withdrawn with regard to Petitioner No. 1.

3.

Whereas the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are concerned they are the in-laws seek quashing of the order of cognizance dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 1206(C) of 2010 (Tr. No. 1577 of 2011).

4.

The case of the Complainant is that she was married to the Petitioner No. 1 on 28.02.2000 on which occasion large number of gifts were given to the in-laws. Later on she gave birth to two children in the years 2001 and 2004. However, the husband of the Complainant was unemployed and, hence, the accused started pressurizing her for bringing a certain amount to set up a business. When the demands were not fulfilled she was tortured for ends of dowry and then she was ousted from the matrimonial home.

5.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that it is impossible to believe that a person would be tortured for ends of dowry even after a lapse of ten years and birth of two children. In fact there was some kind of incompatibility between the spouses which led to institution of the present case. The Petitioners No. 2 and 3 had been roped in so as to coerce the husband into compromising the matter.

6.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that since the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were in-laws who were the controlling persons they should be put on trial.

7.

At one point in time the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre but unfortunately the dispute could not be resolved.

8.

Having considered the nature of allegations and the duration of the marriage, in my view, the prosecution so far as the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are concerned is unwarranted.

9.

Hence, the proceeding as against the Petitioners including the order of cognizance dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 1206(C) of 2010 (Tr. No. 1577 of 2011) is, hereby, set aside.

10.

The application stands allowed.

11.

However, quashment of the present proceeding shall have no bearing on the case of the husband.