AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present application is against the order dated
23.05.2011 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate,
(West) Muzaffarpur in Kanti P.S.Case No. 120 of 2010 whereby
cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 498-
A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short '' IPC '') and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
One Ram Sagar Singh submitted his written report on
16th May, 2010 to the Officer-in-Charge, Kanti Police Station
pursuant to which Kanti P.S.Case No. 120 of 2010 was registered
under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC against the petitioners of
the present case. According to the written report, the informant had
married his daughter Rinku Devi with petitioner no.1 Raju Singh.
There is allegation that after marriage the accused persons started
harassing his daughter for non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle
and Rs.50,000/- in cash. Ultimately, Rinku Devi was driven out of her
matrimonial house on 15th May, 2010 which was informed to the
informant by his elder daughter Sangita Devi, who was also married
in the same locality.
On completion of investigation, the report under Section
173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the court
of Magistrate pursuant to which cognizance of the offence was taken
under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act vide order dated 23rd May, 2011 and the
petitioners were summoned to face trial.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that petitioner no.2 Shatrughan Singh is elder brother of petitioner
no.1 Raju Singh and petitioner no.3 Beena Devi is the wife of
petitioner no.2 whereas petitioner no.4 Shanti Devi is the mother of
petitioner no.1. He submitted that the First Information Report was
instituted on the basis of false and concocted evidence, which would
be evident from the fact that the daughter of the informant herself
filed a matrimonial case on 20th July, 2010 before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Muzaffarpur in which she has given a completely
different story. In the matrimonial case the victim Rinku Devi has
alleged that her husband Raju Singh was having extra-marital affair
with his bhabhi Beena Devi (petitioner no.3) and when a complaint
was made in this regard, her husband assaulted her and said that he
would continue his relationship with his bhabhi. He submitted that
there is no allegation in the matrimonial case that the victim was ever
subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
On the other hand, Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that
the informant of the case has made specific allegation regarding
demand of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash. He submitted that the
contents of the matrimonial case were not examined by the
Investigating Officer of the case and hence the same cannot be made
a ground for quashing of the prosecution against the accused persons.
He submitted that the allegations made in the matrimonial case may
be of some help to the petitioners during trial but the same cannot be
used by the accused persons for holding the prosecution of the
petitioners to be bad at this stage.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
The petitioners have brought on record the plaint of
Matrimonial Case No.230 of 2010 filed by the victim Rinku Devi
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur and annexed the same as
Annexure-5 to the application. From perusal of Annexure-5, it would
be evident that there is matrimonial discord and incompatibility
between the husband and wife. In the plaint of the matrimonial case
the victim has alleged that she was assaulted by her husband in the
matrimonial home but she has not uttered a word against other
petitioners that they ever assaulted her at any point of time or that
there was demand of dowry by any of the accused persons.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the opinion that the implication of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 in the
present case has been made only because they happen to be family
members and relatives of petitioner no.1 Raju Singh. In that view of
the matter, in the opinion of this Court, their prosecution for the
offences alleged would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.05.2011
passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, (West)
Muzaffarpur in Kanti P.S.Case No. 120 of 2010 is quashed so far as
the summoning of petitioner nos. 2 to 4, namely, Shatrughan Singh,
Beena Devi and Shanti Devi are concerned.
The application in respect of petitioner no.1 Raju Singh
is dismissed. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (West),
Muzaffarpur is directed to proceed with the trial of petitioner no.1
Raju Singh forthwith.
The application stands allowed to the extent indicated
above.