NITU DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) The present application has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dtd. 15/7/2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura in G.R. No.624 of 2013, Tr. No. 3958 of 2013 arising out of Udakishunganj P.S. Case No.73 of 2013, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 342, 323, 452, 354, 509, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and others.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant/opposite party no.2, namely, Ranju Devi married to one Pramod Mandal on 19/7/2009 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals at Sinheswar Temple and during the marriage, her father gave sufficient gifts including cash, ornaments, utensils and cloths worth Rs.5,00,000.00 as per his capacity and thereafter, the informant joined her matrimonial home, where she remained normal for two months. Thereafter, the in-laws of the informant started to torture her. After living at her matrimonial home for about four months, her father took her to maternal home. After one month, elder brother-in-law of the informant, namely, Manoj Mandal brought her back to her matrimonial home. The informant/O.P. No.2 further alleged that the petitioners along with others started assault and torture her and made a demand to bring one Maruti car and cash of Rs.5,00,000.00 to which the informant/O.P. No.2 objected. Thereafter, she was subjected to torture. When the informant/ O.P. No.2 told her husband that her father is not capable of meeting the demand of dowry, he also used to torture her. The informant further alleged that whenever the husband of her sister-in-law (petitioner no.6) used to come to Dharhara, he also used to instigate the others to compel her to get a Maruti car and cash. The informant further alleged that at 12:00 in the midnight, after finding her alone, the petitioner, namely, Satya Narayan Mandal entered into her room and started to sexually molest her to which when the informant objected, he told her to keep quiet and on one occasion, petitioners as well as her husband assaulted her at midnight and ousted her out of the house and told that without fulfiling demand of dowry, she would not allow to enter into the house, whereafter informant was compelled to live at the neighbour's house. From where, the informant, informed her father about the entire incident, who came over there and took the informant back to her parental home. The informant has further alleged that fifteen days prior to lodging of the FIR, her husband as well as the petitioner no.6 used to come to Dharhara, he also used to instigate the others to compel her family members/parents to get a Maruti car and cash, they got violent and started abusing and assaulting the informant/O.P. No.2 and told that as they had insulted them, hence, as long as the demand of dowry was not fulfilled, their daughter would not be taken back to her matrimonial home.