DINESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No. 206(C) of 2006, summoning the accused-petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. While this application was filed on behalf of the four accused-petitioners, namely, Nandu Mahto, Dinesh Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Rita Devi, but due to the death of the accused-petitioner, Nandu Mahto, this application in respect to him has been rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.6.2010 as having become anfractuous. As such, this application survives only on behalf of the remaining three accused-petitioners.

(2.) In brief, the case is that the opposite party no. 2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No. 206(C) of 2006 against Nandu Mahto [(father-in-law) since dead], Dinesh Mahto (brother-in-law), Rita Devi (sister-in-law) and Mahesh Mahto (brother-in-law), with allegation that her marriage was performed with Ganesh Mahto, son of Nandu Mahto (since dead) on 12th of May, 2002 according to Hindu customs. At the time of her marriage, her father had gifted clothes and utensils worth Rs. 5,000/-, ornaments worth Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 51,000/- in cash. After the marriage, she went to her sasural and stayed there for about six days. Later on, after Durga Puja, she went to her sasural in second marriage. As her husband used to do the job of labourer, therefore, in that connection he generally used to live at Bombay. After reaching her sasural after second marriage, her Sasur, Bhaisur, Gotni and Dewar, used to put pressure on her to bring in cash Rs. 25,000/- and a colour television from her Maika, but her father was unable to fulfill their demand. Due to non-fulfillment of demand, all the accused started to torture and harass to the opposite party no. 2 in various modes including by not providing proper food and clothes by saying that if she will not bring the aforesaid articles from her Maika, she will be killed. Tasar Devi, the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, tried to intervene, but they were adamant on their demand and, ultimately, she was removed from her matrimonial house, after snatching her personal belongings by the accused persons and she reached her Maika and narrated all the incidents to her parents.

(3.) After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no. 2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, on inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, summoned the accused-petitioners through the impugned order dated 26.2.2007 finding prima facie case under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.