KAILASH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 4.4.2003 passed by the S.D.J.M., Danapur, Patna in Complaint Case No. 98-C of 2003 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has directed for filing requisites for issuance of summons against the petitioner and other accused of the case.

(2.) It appears that on 18.2.2003 O.P.No. 2 Geeta Sharma filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danpur against the petitioner and others stating therein that she was married to the petitioner on 2.5.1995 at Danapur, Patna. After marriage she went to her sasural and started living with her husband. On 24.2.1996 a daughter and on 21.9.1997 a son were born from the wed-lock. But since December, 1997 the petitioner in conspiracy with other accused persons began to torture her for dowry of Rs. 50,000/- but as the amount could not be paid, she was brutally assaulted and driven out of his house along with her children. She has come to learn that he has subsequently also contracted the second marriage. It is further alleged that finding difficulty she filed a maintenance case in the Family Court, Patna and that on 17.2.2003 the petitioner along with other co-accused came to the house of her father where she was living and again demanded Rs. 50,000/- and on protest became furious and on request did not return the ornaments and threatened that they would not get a single penny of anything for the maintenance of the complainant and her children and went away. They further threatened that if the maintenance case was not withdrawn they would teach her lesson.

(3.) Learned A.C.J.M. examined the complainant on S.A. and also examined three witnesses in the enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC and finding a prima facie case against the petitioner and others under Section 498-A, IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act passed the impugned order.