SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, in both the applications. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 21703 of 2003 would be the husband while petitioners in 35584 of 2003 would be his family members. The opposite party No. 2 in both the applications would be the wife of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. 21703 of 2003.

(2.) A complaint case would have been filed on 2.1.2003 registered as Complaint Case No. 5 of 2003 by opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called the 'Complaint') under sections 406, 379, 498-A and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation would be that the complainant was married on 29.4.1999. The husband and his family members would have created demands for dowry during the marriage. Even thereafter the husband would allegedly ignore the complainant for association with his sister-in-law. The complainant would have been humiliated, assaulted and demands made for a motorcycle. Her jewellery would have been snatched. The complainant having visited her matrimonial home the husband would not have gone to bring her back till such 'time that he be not gifted a motorcycle. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- would then have been given to the husband whereafter the complainant was brought back to the matrimonial home. The demands would have continued even thereafter as narrated in the complaint including assault and alleged illicit relations between the husband and his sister-in-law. The complainant would have gone back to her maternal home in frustration. None would have come to take her back. A child would have been born to the complainant on 14.6.2000 when the husband still refused to visit his wife and participate in festivities.

(3.) Cognizance would then have been taken against the petitioners under sections 498-A, 379 and 323 of the Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.