ZARINA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal miscellaneous application is directed against the order dated 18.8.2001 passed by Mr. Ram Snehi Thakur, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision No. 282 of 2001, whereby and whereunder he has set aside the order dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul at Benipur in C.R. No. 85 of 2001 taking cognizance against all the accused persons under Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner filed complaint before the sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Biraul, which has been registered as C.R. No. 85 of 2001, making 15 persons as accused. A true copy of the said complaint has been annexed as Annexure 1. IN the complaint it is alleged that the complainant was married with Soti @ Chhote Naddaf (accused No. 1) according to Muslim customs, 5-6 years back. IN the said marriage the father of the complainant gave sufficient gift and other items including the ornaments as per the demand from the accused persons, but they were not satisfied with the same and they kept on pressurising the complainant to get the buffalo and Rs. 10,000/- cash from her parents but the complainant kept on opposing and expressed helplessness. It is further alleged that they always tortured the complainant and also assaulted her and stopped giving food to her. Ultimately they conspired together and drove her out of the house by assaulting her and taking away ornaments, clothes etc. worth Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant returned to her father and told him about the entire situation, upon which her father and other witnesses went to the in-laws of the complainant and asked them as to why they misbehaved with her. It is alleged that accused No. 1, who is the husband of the complainant, told them also that until 10,000/- rupees in cash is not given in dowry they will not get back the complainant and further it is alleged that the accused persons abused her father and also assaulted which has been stated by the witnesses.

(3.) IT is true that for constituting the offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C., a person is to be punished if woman is subjected to cruelty by husband or the relative of the husband, but in Section 379, I.P.C. there is nothing to show that unless relationship of the accused persons is established, they cannot be punished. What is relevant is the ingredients for constituting the offences under the aforesaid provisions and at his stage the Court is required to only examine as to whether in the complaint or statement on S.A. offence is made out against the accused persons before taking cognizance.