MADHU GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing the order 9.9.2008 passed by the Court of Sri S. Kaushar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 2845 of 2006/Trial No. 2157 of 2008, summoning the accused-petitioners, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under Sections 323/448/504 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts, leading to this application, are that the complainant-opposite party No. 2, Manish Kumar, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No. 2845 of 2006, against the six accused persons including the petitioners, with the contention that he has filed the Divorce Case, numbered as Matrimonial Case No. 133 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, on 9.8.2005. On knowing about the said Matrimonial Case, all the accused persons including the petitioners armed with lathi, danda and rod came at the house of his father, who is a Senior Advocate, and started to abuse showing the paper of divorce. At that time, his father was doing the work behind the house after locking the grill of the house. All the accused persons including the petitioners entered into the house breaking the lock of the grill and started to assault the complainant-opposite party No. 2. The accused-petitioner No. 1, Madhu Gupta and the accused-petitioner No. 2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, snatched the gold chain from the neck of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 and ordered to kill him. Thereafter, all the accused persons including the petitioners started to assault him again with an intention to kill. On raising 'hulla' to save, his father rushed there and tried to save him but the accused-petitioner No. 1, Madhu Gupta, also assaulted his father through slipper and tore the cloth. It is also alleged that the accused No. 6, Md. Asfi, damaged the television and threatened his father for dire consequences, if the case will be lodged about the occurrence and, thereafter, all the accused persons including the petitioners fled away. At that time, the accused No. 3, Sweety Gupta, the wife of the complainant-opposite party No. 2, Manish Kumar, took away all her personal belongings. On the next date, the matter was reported to the police but the police refused to register the case.

(2.) After filing of the aforesaid com plaint petition by the complainant-opposite party No. 2, Manish Kumar, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, out of six accused, named in the complaint petition, the accused-petitioners, were summoned through the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 finding the prima facie case under Sections 323, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on be half of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are none else but the mother- in-law and father-in-law of the complain ant-opposite party No. 2, Manish Kumar and much prior to the filing of the com plaint petition by the complainant-opposite party No. 2, on the basis of the written report of the accused-petitioner No. 2, Rabindra Nath Gupta, Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 281 of 2005 was instituted on 21.8.2005 under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act regarding the occurrence of torture and harassment to his daughter, Sweety Gupta, named as accused No. 3 in the complaint petition, for demand of dowry and removing her from the Sasural house after snatching her personal belongings against the complainant-opposite party No. 2 and his parents. In that case, the prayers for anticipatory bail of the complainant-opposite party No. 2, Manish Kumar, have been rejected upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and due to that reason with oblique motive, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, the father of the complainant-opposite party No. 2, who is Senior Advocate in Civil Court, Muzaffarpur, got filed the present com plaint case through the complainant-opposite party No. 2, so that the petitioners may not pursue the case of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 281 of 2005 and also could not create any hindrance to succeed in divorce case as alleged in the complaint petition of the complainant-opposite party No. 2. It is also contended that from the complaint petition itself, it is clear that regarding the alleged occurrence of 16.8.2005, the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 on 26.12.2006, after about 16 months only to take defence in Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 281 of 2005, as lodged for causing cruelty, harassment and removing the accused No. 3, Sweety Gupta, by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 and his family members on 15.8.2005 after snatching her personal belongings.