RASHMI SINHA @ DEJY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.892(C) of 2007 and also the order dated 17.3.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in the aforesaid complaint case, summoning the six accused persons, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) In brief, the facts leading to this application are that the opposite party no.2, Smt. Rubi Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.892(C) of 2007, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, against her husband, Birendra Prasad, elder brother- in-law (Bhaisur), Ram Pravesh Singh, sister- in-law (Jethani), Smt. Uma Devi, petitioner no.3, nieces (Bhatijees), Rashmi Sinha alias Dejy and Pflti Sinha alias Dipu, petitioners no.1 and 2 respectively, and one Saryug Singh, under Sections 323, 307, 379, 498- A and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the complainant- opposite party no.2 is that her marriage was performed in the year 2000 with the Birendra Prasad and at the time of marriage her parents had given dowry according to their capacity. After her marriage, the opposite party no.2 went to her sasural, where her Jethani, Smt. Uma Devi and Bhaisur, Ram Pravesh Singh, made complaint about not providing the proper dowry as settled and also stated about dire consequences in case of non fulfillment of remaining dowry. After sometime her father came for her Bidai at her sasural, then her Bhaisur and Jethani, refused to send her in Bidai saying that unless the remaining dowry amount is not paid, the Bidai will not be performed, hence, her father returned to his house. The opposite party no.2 stayed at her sasural about six months and in the meantime, she conceived pregnancy. During that period, she was also being taunted by her Jethani, so she was worried. She was also driven out from her sasural house causing assault by her husband, Bhaisur and Jethani. On reaching at her Maika, she narrated the incident to her parents and after few months she gave birth to a son. Regarding the birth of her son, information was sent to her sasural but no one turned up to look her. After passing over two years, her father brought her alongwith her son to her sasural. Thereafter, again she was being tortured by her Bhaisur and Jethani through various modes. In the meantime, she again conceived pregnancy. While anyhow she was leading her life at her sasural, but again she was removed from her sasural causing assault by her Jethani and daughters of Jethani, giving threatening to kill her. Thereafter, she reached at her Maika and gave written application before the Mahila Aayog, Patna. On notice, her husband and Bhaisur appeared and gave assurance to keep her properly and she was taken back to her sasural but after passing over few months, she was again being tortured and on 25.6.2007, an attempt was made to kill her by pressing her mouth through the pillow but anyhow she woke up and fled away from house raising alarm and lastly, on 28.6.2007, she was driven out from sasural?s house snatching her ornaments, cloths worth Rs.40,000/- and also cash Rs.5000/-.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, on going through the complaint petition, transferred the same to the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, who, on inquiry, summoned the accused persons, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners through the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 finding prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.