IZHAR ANSARI Vs. BIBI REHANA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) have prayed for quashing of the order dated 9.12.1997 passed in Complaint Case No.1685 of 1997 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. By the said order the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the complainant-opposite party no.1 filed a complaint petition vide Complaint Case No.1685 of 1997 alleging therein that after her marriage with the petitioner no.1, Bidagri was done and she arrived and stayed at her in-laws house for about two days. During her stay for a short-while, it was alleged that she was tortured by the petitioners for the purpose of extracting dowry from the father of the complainant. It has also been asserted in the complaint petition that the complainant over heard a conspiracy which was being hatched by the accused persons that in case of non-fulfillment of dowry she would be killed. After coming to know about such conspiracy, any how the complainant returned back to her parents house. She was expecting at her parents house that her husband would come to take her back but suddenly she received a notice from the court of Purnea. Thereafter she got the fact verified from the courts record and the present complaint petition was filed by the complainant. The complainant had explained regarding the delay in filing of the complaint petition.

(3.) Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, challenging the order of cognizance, submits that prima facie initiation of the proceeding pursuant to the complaint petition amounts to be a malicious prosecution. He submits that the complainant at her own will had returned back to her parents house and thereafter she was not coming back. Constrained with her attitude, petitioner no.1 filed a petition of restitution of conjugal right and in that case notice was sent to the complainant and after coming to know that the petitioner no.1 had taken steps for restitution of conjugal right by way of approaching a competent court, the complainant with malice had filed the complaint petition and thereafter she was examined on solemn affirmation and some witnesses have also been examined. Thereafter, by order dated 9.12.1997 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as mentioned above and ordered for issuance of process for their appearance. The court also transferred the case to another court for its disposal. On sole ground of malicious prosecution learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance as well as for quashing of the entire proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid complaint case.