JAGARNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have approached this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No.505 of 2008 and also the summoning order passed on 25.6.2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua finding the prima facie case against the accused- petitioners under Sections 498(A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) In short, the case is that Bihari Lal Sao, the father of opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, filed the aforesaid complaint petition with the allegation that he performed the marriage of his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 with the petitioner no.3, Manesh Kumar Prasad according to Hindu rites and customs and she was sent in Bidai on 21.4.2006 with him. At the time of marriage, he had given a bank draft of Rs.3,40,000/- in the name of petitioner no.1, Jagarnath Prasad, the father of petitioner no.3 and also a Hero Honda Motorcycle, computer, T.V., Fridge, furnitures, ornaments and clothes worth Rs.1,50,000/- as gifts. His daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, was kept for one week properly at her sasural but thereafter the accused-petitioners used to ask Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, to bring Rs.5 lacs as dowry to purchase Alto car and for which she was being tortured. It is also alleged that when Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, showed her inability to ask her father about the cash Rs.5 lacs then the accused-petitioner no.3, Manesh Kumar Prasad, the husband of opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, assaulted her with fists and slaps saying her to ask her father to give the aforesaid money and she was being tortured in various ways. Thereafter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, informed the complainant on phone about the aforesaid dowry demand and then he reached at the sasural of his daughter and stayed there in night and all incidents were narrated by opposite party no.2 to him. The complainant showed his inability to give Rs.5 lacs for Alto car in dowry and had tried to convince them and returned to his house. In spite of that there was no change in the behaviour of the accused-petitioners and his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 was being tortured and thereafter, she again informed the complainant after passing of four months regarding her torture by the accused-petitioners. Then the complainant again went to the sasural of his daughter, opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, alongwith the witnesses and had tried to convince again but all went in vain and in his presence, his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 was slapped by her husband, accused- petitioner no.3,giving threatening to leave the house. Thereafter, the complainant returned to his house alongwith his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2. At that time, the opposite party no.2 was pregnant and after four months she gave birth to a female child on 4th of February, 2007. In spite of that, he always used to request the accused-petitioners to bring her daughter, opposite party no.2, Rinku Devi, but they were determined on demand and they were not ready to bring his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2, but anyhow, his son-in-law, accused-petitioner no.3, came to his house and took his daughter in Bidai but there was no change in the behaviour of his son-in-law, accused-petitioner no.3 and his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 was being tortured.

(3.) The further case of the complainant is that on 16.4.2008, under conspiracy all the accused-petitioners asked his daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 to accompany them to go to Vaishno Devi for Mundan Ceremony of her daughter and her daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 went with him to Vaishno Devi, for performing Mundan Ceremony and while returning from there, in way, at Kudra Railway Station , accused-petitioner no.3 snatched the baby from the lap of her daughter and she was forced to get down from the train by the accused-petitioner no.3 asking her to come with Rs.5 lacs from his father. Thereafter, her daughter, Rinku Devi, opposite party no.2 came to her Maike and narrated all the incidents to the complainant. The complainant approached the accused-petitioners saying that they had given assurance to come at his house while returning from Vaishno Devi but they did not come, then all the accused-petitioners told him that whether he had come with Rs.5 lacs for car and when he showed his inability, all the accused-petitioners abused him and thereafter he returned to his house. Accordingly, the complaint case was filed.